Different Row Spacing and Reducing Nitrogen Application in Soybean-Maize Intercropping Under Mechanization: Effects on Crop Yield and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Soybean

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0411

Abstract

Abstract:

The population yield and photosynthetic characteristics of soybean under different maize-soybean intercropping modes of field mechanization were studied, to provide a theoretical basis for selecting suitable row spacing configuration and reducing nitrogen application for maize-soybean intercropping in Henan Province. The row ratio and fertilizer reduction were set as two factors, and maize monoculture and soybean monoculture were used as control. Two row ratios were set as 2:4 intercropping of maize and soybean (2/4J) and 4:4 intercropping of maize and soybean (4/4J). The treatment of reducing nitrogen application reduced the nitrogen rate of the above row ratios by 20 % (2/4N, 4/4N). The effects of row spacing and nitrogen fertilizer reduction on crop yield, soybean LAI, dry matter weight, SPAD value and leaf photosynthetic rate were studied. The results of the two years’ experiment showed that the yield of 2/4J, 4/4J, 2/4N and 4/4N treatments were lower than those of monoculture, and LAI, dry matter weight, SPAD value and leaf photosynthetic rate were significantly lower than those of monoculture. However, compared nitrogen reduction with no nitrogen reduction, except LAI, there was no significant difference of dry matter weight, leaf photosynthetic rate (Pn) and SPAD value. In summary, in row spacing configuration and fertilization of maize-soybean intercropping mode in Henan Province, 2/4N treatment of maize-soybean intercropping with row ratio of 2:4 and nitrogen reduction of 20% can increase the accumulation of photosynthetic products, so as to improve soybean yield and intercropping efficiency.

Key words: maize-soybean intercropping, row spacing, reducing nitrogen application, photosynthetic characteristics, yield

CLC Number:

S565.3

ZHU Xixia, ZHENG Yuzhen, WANG Haihong, HUANG Bao, PING Xishuan, LIU Tianxue, ZHAO Xia, LI Yuzhen. Different Row Spacing and Reducing Nitrogen Application in Soybean-Maize Intercropping Under Mechanization: Effects on Crop Yield and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Soybean[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(29): 16-21.

Figures/Tables 4

References 28

[1]	王恭祎, 段碧华, 石书兵. 作物间作[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2013.
[2]	SZUMIGALSKI A R, VAN ACKER R C. Nitrogen yield and land use efficiency in annual sole crops and intercrops[J]. Agronomy journal, 2006, 98(4):1030-1040. doi: 10.2134/agronj2005.0277 URL
[3]	SHENNAN C. Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture[J]. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological sciences, 2008, 363(1492):717-739. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2180 URL
[4]	LIU X, RAHMAN T, SONG C, et al. Relationships among light distribution, radiation use efficiency and land equivalent ratio in maize-soybean strip intercropping[J]. Field crops research, 2018, 224:91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.010 URL
[5]	于晓波, 苏本营, 龚万灼, 等. 玉米-大豆带状套作对大豆根瘤性状和固氮能力的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(9):1743-1753.
[6]	杨文钰, 雍太文, 任万军, 等. 发展玉米套种大豆,振兴大豆产业[J]. 大豆科学, 2008, 27(1):1-7.
[7]	王雅梅, 许彦骁, 王亚露, 等. 玉米-大豆不同宽幅间作对大豆光合特性及群体产量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(11):2587-2595.
[8]	王竹, 杨文钰, 伍晓燕, 等. 玉米株型和幅宽对套作大豆初花期形态建成及产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, 19(2):329-323.
[9]	刘卫国, 蒋涛, 佘跃辉, 等. 大豆苗期茎秆对荫蔽胁迫响应的生理机制初探[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2011, 33(2):141-146.
[10]	刘静, 连煜阳. 种植业结构调整对化肥施用量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019, 38(11):2544-2552.
[11]	邸伟, 金喜军, 马春梅, 等. 施氮水平对大豆氮素积累与产量影响的研究[J]. 核农学报, 2010, 24(3):612-617.
[12]	蒲玮, 吴雅薇, 张頔, 等. 减氮配施氮肥增效剂对土壤速效氮和玉米产量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(3):276-283.
[13]	张卫建. 对我国玉米绿色增产增效栽培技术的探讨:增密减氮[J]. 作物杂志, 2015(4):1-4.
[14]	瓮巧云, 黄新军, 许翰林, 等. 玉米/大豆间作模式对青贮玉米产量、品质及土壤营养、根际微生物的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(2):462-470. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.02.0462
[15]	赵笃勤, 刘淑慧, 赵凯超. 玉米-大豆间作和减量施氮对玉米生长、产量及土壤硝态氮含量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(8):1159-1166.
[16]	赵霞, 穆心愿, 卢道文, 等. 生态环境与种植密度对河南省夏玉米产量的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2018, 26(6):68-74.
[17]	刘丽, 杨静, 李成云. 玉米-大豆间作对玉米根际氨氧化微生物的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2017, 33(6):1278.
[18]	代真林, 汪娅婷, 姚秀英, 等. 玉米大豆间作模式对玉米根际土壤微生物群落特征、玉米产量及病害的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报:自然科学, 2020, 35(5):756-764.
[19]	赵建华, 孙建好, 李伟绮. 玉米播期对大豆/玉米间作产量及种间竞争力的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(11):1634-1642.
[20]	刘洋, 孙占祥, 白伟, 等. 玉米大豆间作对辽西地区作物生长和产量的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2011, 30(2):224-228.
[21]	舒凯, 孟永杰, 帅海威, 等. 四川玉米-大豆带状套作复合群体产量变异及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2015, 37(6):832-837.
[22]	叶照春, 何永福, 陆德清, 等. 玉米不同密度下间作大豆控草效果及对产量的影响[J]. 杂草科学, 2015, 33(4):1-4.
[23]	田艺心, 曹鹏鹏, 高凤菊, 等. 减氮施肥对间作玉米-大豆生长性状及经济效益的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2019(11):109-113.
[24]	任媛媛, 张莉, 郁耀闯, 等. 大豆种植密度对玉米/大豆间作系统产量形成的竞争效应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(10):1978. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04226
[25]	王俊, 隋标, 王鸿斌, 等. 吉林省玉米带玉米与大豆不同间作模式对作物产量及水分利用率的影响[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2021, 43(1):22-27.
[26]	杜青, 陈平, 刘姗姗, 等. 玉米-大豆间套作下田间小气候对大豆花形态建成进程的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(13):2746-2758.
[27]	李盛蓝, 谭婷婷, 范元芳, 等. 玉米荫蔽对大豆光合特性与叶脉、气孔特征的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(21):3782-3793.
[28]	崔亮, 苏本营, 杨峰, 等. 不同玉米-大豆带状套作组合条件下光合有效辐射强度分布特征对大豆光合特性和产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(8):1489-1501.

处理	2020年		2021年		玉米平均产量	大豆平均产量
处理	玉米	大豆	玉米	大豆	玉米平均产量	大豆平均产量
单作	9658±252a	3876±89a	8564±136a	4132±101a	9111	4004
2/4J	7868±201c	2805±32b	6410±164c	2337±54b	7139	2571
4/4J	8952±152b	1758±41c	7546±125b	2078±38c	8249	1918
2/4N	7535±215c	2693±133b	6338±180c	2241±69b	6936.5	2467
4/4N	8873±197b	1734±154c	7354±218b	1997±76c	8113.5	1865.5

处理	2020年		2021年		玉米平均产量	大豆平均产量
处理	玉米	大豆	玉米	大豆	玉米平均产量	大豆平均产量
单作	9658±252a	3876±89a	8564±136a	4132±101a	9111	4004
2/4J	7868±201c	2805±32b	6410±164c	2337±54b	7139	2571
4/4J	8952±152b	1758±41c	7546±125b	2078±38c	8249	1918
2/4N	7535±215c	2693±133b	6338±180c	2241±69b	6936.5	2467
4/4N	8873±197b	1734±154c	7354±218b	1997±76c	8113.5	1865.5

处理	2020年			2021年			平均值
处理	V3	V5	R1	V3	V5	R1	V3	V5	R1
单作	0.82±0.02a	2.23±0.37a	2.97±0.24a	0.93±0.03a	2.57±0.32a	3.21±0.32a	0.88	2.40	3.09
2/4J	0.71±0.17b	1.83±0.32b	2.45±0.22b	0.82±0.18c	2.01±0.42b	2.73±0.42c	0.77	1.92	2.45
4/4J	0.67±0.15b	1.77±0.24b	2.32±0.19b	0.79±0.13b	1.96±0.39b	2.57±0.34b	0.73	1.87	2.59
2/4N	0.69±0.16b	1.74±0.15c	2.28±0.21c	0.75±0.15c	1.86±0.28c	2.43±0.31c	0.72	1.80	2.24
4/4N	0.65±0.12b	1.54±0.11c	2.16±0.18b	0.71±0.16c	1.73±0.27c	2.31±0.35c	0.68	1.64	2.36

处理	2020年			2021年			平均值
处理	V3	V5	R1	V3	V5	R1	V3	V5	R1
单作	0.82±0.02a	2.23±0.37a	2.97±0.24a	0.93±0.03a	2.57±0.32a	3.21±0.32a	0.88	2.40	3.09
2/4J	0.71±0.17b	1.83±0.32b	2.45±0.22b	0.82±0.18c	2.01±0.42b	2.73±0.42c	0.77	1.92	2.45
4/4J	0.67±0.15b	1.77±0.24b	2.32±0.19b	0.79±0.13b	1.96±0.39b	2.57±0.34b	0.73	1.87	2.59
2/4N	0.69±0.16b	1.74±0.15c	2.28±0.21c	0.75±0.15c	1.86±0.28c	2.43±0.31c	0.72	1.80	2.24
4/4N	0.65±0.12b	1.54±0.11c	2.16±0.18b	0.71±0.16c	1.73±0.27c	2.31±0.35c	0.68	1.64	2.36

处理	2020年			2021年			平均值
处理	V3	V5	R1	V3	V5	R1	V3	V5	R1
单作	11.45±1.34b	71.21±3.46a	152.44±5.32a	11.36±1.36a	75.38±3.27a	178.76±6.15a	11.41	73.30	165.60
2/4J	9.24±1.02b	54.27±2.46b	137.46±5.47b	9.17±1.76	59.44±3.25b	152.78±5.32b	9.21	56.86	145.12
4/4J	8.36±1.23c	50.97±2.67c	124.62±5.16c	8.22±1.26	55.67±2.97c	141.79±5.98c	8.29	53.32	133.21
2/4N	9.11±1.09b	53.13±2.87b	131.25±5.82b	9.03±1.39	54.27±2.74b	150.26±5.28b	9.07	53.70	140.76
4/4N	8.45±1.22c	28.21±2.38c	122.83±5.43c	8.32±1.44	53.59±3.16c	140.83±5.65c	8.39	40.90	131.83