Effects of Potato/Legume Intercropping System on Soil Enzyme Activity and Potato Yield in Arid Region of Southern Ningxia

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0666

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of the potato-legume intercropping system on soil enzyme activity and potato yield in the arid region of southern Ningxia, a field positioning experiment with three different planting patterns, including potato monoculture (P), potato-soybean intercropping (PS), potato-broad bean intercropping (PB) were conducted for two consecutive years from 2020 to 2021 to explore the differences of soil enzyme activity and potato yield in different intercropping patterns. The results revealed that intercropping significantly enhanced the activities of catalase, urease, sucrase and acid phosphatase in 0-60 cm soil. The enzyme activities of each treatment were basically manifested as PS>PB>P, which increased first and then decreased during the whole growth period, and gradually decreased with the deepening of soil layer. In 2020, the activities of catalase, urease, sucrase and acid phosphatase of PS were 0.51%-4.69%, 7.96%-152.23%, 3.22%-192.00%, 5.75%-175.80% and 1.28%-9.10%, 4.11%-53.99%, 3.61%-140.27%, 4.27%-133.7% higher than those of PB and P, respectively. In 2021, the activities of catalase, urease, sucrase and acid phosphatase of PS were 0.20%-4.63%, 0.84%-93.93%, 4.26%-143.26%, 4.85%-50.41% and 0.13%-8.83%, 0.05%-94.53%, 1.13%-334.33%, 7.15%-99.34% higher than those of PB and P, respectively. The potato yield showed PS>PB>P in both years. In 2020, PS and PB significantly increased by 13.96% and 5.33% compared with P, respectively. In 2021, PS and PB significantly increased by 33.85% and 14.31% compared with P, respectively (P<0.05). Through principal component analysis, the comprehensive scores of P, PS and PB in 2020 and 2021 were -0.79, 2.55, -1.75 and -2.69, 3.36, -0.68, respectively, and PS was the highest in both years. The intercropping of potato and leguminous crops promoted the increase of soil catalase, urease, sucrase and acid phosphatase activities, which provided a certain basis for soil formation and soil fertility improvement, and provided a better environment for potato growth and development, thus increasing the yield of potato. In this study, potato-soybean intercropping had the advantage of intercropping and could significantly increase potato yield.

Key words: potato, leguminous crops, intercropping, soil enzyme activity, yield

MA Xiaoying, MAN Benju, LI Tao, LIU Weifan, MA Fenglan, WAN Menghu, LIU Jili, WU Na. Effects of Potato/Legume Intercropping System on Soil Enzyme Activity and Potato Yield in Arid Region of Southern Ningxia[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(14): 13-24.

Figures/Tables 11

References 48

[1]	满本菊. 宁夏半干旱区马铃薯豆类间作系统下作物生长生理特性及土壤养分研究[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2022.
[2]	SHARMA N K, SINGH J R, MANDAL D, et al. Increasing farmer’s income and reducing soil erosion using intercropping in rainfed maize-wheat rotation of Himalaya, India[J]. Agriculture ecosystems environment, 2017, 247:43-53.
[3]	党科, 宫香伟, 吕思明, 等. 糜子/绿豆间作模式下施氮量对绿豆叶片光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(6):1175-1187. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04148
[4]	王一帆, 殷文, 胡发龙, 等. 间作小麦光合性能对地上地下互作强度的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(5):929-941. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.01047
[5]	LI L, WERF D V W, ZHANG F. Crop diversity and sustainable agriculture: mechanisms, designs and applications[J]. Frontiers of agricultural science and engineering, 2021, 8:359-361. doi: 10.15302/J-FASE-2021417
[6]	NYAWADE S O, KARANJA N N, GACHENE C K K, et al. Short-term dynamics of soil organic matter fractions and microbial activity in smallholder potato-legume intercropping systems[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2019b, 142:123-135.
[7]	CURTRIGHT A J, TIEMANN L K. Intercropping increases soil extracellular enzyme activity: a meta-analysis[J]. Agriculture ecosystems and environment, 2021, 319:107489.
[8]	HU L, HUANG R, DENG H, et al. Effects of different intercropping methods on soil organic carbon and aggregate stability in sugarcane field[J]. Polish journal of environmental studies, 2022, 31:3587-3596.
[9]	李巧玲, 肖忠, 任明波, 等. 间作不同作物对栀子根际土壤微生态的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2021, 48(10):3588-3602.
[10]	吴希慧, 王蕊, 高长青, 等. 土地利用驱动的土壤性状变化影响微生物群落结构和功能[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(20):7989-8002.
[11]	CUARTERO J, PASCUAL J A, VIVO J M, et al. A first-year melon/cowpea intercropping system improves soil nutrients and changes the soil microbial community[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 2022, 328:107856.
[12]	赵平, 郑毅, 汤利, 等. 小麦蚕豆间作施氮对小麦氮素吸收、累积的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 18(4):742-747.
[13]	樊军, 郝明德. 黄土高原旱地轮作与施肥长期定位试验研究Ⅰ.长期轮作与施肥对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2003, 9(1):9-13.
[14]	XIAO X W, HAN L, CHEN H R, et al. Intercropping enhances microbial community diversity and ecosystem functioning in maize fields[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2023, 13:1084452.
[15]	乔月静, 郭来春, 葛军勇, 等. 燕麦与豆科作物间作对土壤酶活和微生物量的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2020, 55(3):54-61.
[16]	李萍, 张永成, 田丰. 马铃薯蚕豆间套作系统的生理生态研究进展与效益评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2012, 40(27):13313-13314.
[17]	DONG N, TANG M M, ZHANG W P, et al. Temporal differentiation of crop growth as one of the drivers of intercropping yield advantage[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8(1):3110. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21414-w pmid: 29449595
[18]	关松荫. 土壤酶学研究方法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986.
[19]	刘娟娟, 石铭福, 孙得翔, 等. 轮作豆科植物对马铃薯连作土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2025, 60(1):97-104,111.
[20]	杜宏辉, 贾学刚, 杨涛. 化肥减量及配施生物有机肥对马铃薯产量、矿质元素含量及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2023, 36(9):66-74.
[21]	李卓远. 榆林地区不同品种马铃薯产量和品质与土壤养分的互作效应研究[D]. 延安: 延安大学, 2023.
[22]	唐秀梅, 黄志鹏, 吴海宁, 等. 玉米/花生间作条件下土壤环境因子的相关性和主成分分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(2):223-230. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.02.002
[23]	王顺. 不同灌水量及氮肥基追比对马铃薯生长和土壤酶活性的影响[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2021.
[24]	王顺, 尹娟, 张海军, 等. 不同水氮处理对马铃薯土壤酶活性和产量的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2021(8):67-73.
[25]	詹柳琪, 郭陞垚, 黄佳华, 等. 花生玉米间作对土壤酶活性、养分及作物产量的影响[J]. 福建农业学报, 2022, 37(8):985-994.
[26]	王顶, 李欢, 伊文博, 等. 马铃薯间作对土壤微生物代谢功能多样性的促进效应及其氮素调控作用[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2022, 30(7):1164-1173.
[27]	张开虹, 桑维钧, 何世芳, 等. 不同作物间作对烤烟根际土壤细菌群落组成及功能的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2020, 48(4):80-86.
[28]	耿贵. 作物根系分泌物对土壤碳、氮含量、微生物数量和酶活性的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2011.
[29]	赵卫松, 郭庆港, 李社增, 等. 土壤添加西兰花残体对棉花根际土壤酶活性的影响及其与碳代谢特征的关系[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(11):2092-2105. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.11.005
[30]	陈梅. 豆科作物根系形态构型及生理对低磷胁迫的响应[D]. 贵阳: 贵州大学, 2023.
[31]	李松. 豆科牧草对土壤酶活性及肥力影响研究[J]. 草业科学, 1993(5):20-23.
[32]	陈伟, 陈懿, 姜超英, 等. 混播绿肥压青下植烟土壤微生物量及酶活性特征[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2024, 63(2):88-93.
[33]	FAN Y F, WANG Z L, LIAO D P, et al. Uptake and utilization of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as related to yield advantage in maize-soybean intercropping under different row configurations[J]. Scientific reports, 2020, 10(1):9504. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66459-y pmid: 32528144
[34]	张晓娜, 陈平, 杜青, 等. 玉米/大豆、玉米/花生间作对作物氮素吸收及结瘤固氮的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(8):1183-1194.
[35]	杨欢, 周颖, 陈平, 等. 玉米-豆科作物带状间套作对养分吸收利用及产量优势的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(6):1476-1487. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.13017
[36]	酒鹃鹃, 李永梅, 王梦雪, 等. 玉米大豆间作对坡耕地红壤团聚体分布及稳定性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(22):219-228.
[37]	张艳, 郭书亚, 尚赏, 等. 甘薯/玉米不同间作方式对土壤养分、酶活性及作物产量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(8):1234-1238.
[38]	刘振洋, 吴鑫雨, 汤利, 等. 小麦蚕豆间作体系氮素吸收累积动态及其种间氮素竞争关系[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(7):1284-1294.
[39]	张金丹, 范虹, 杜进勇, 等. 小麦玉米同步增密有利于优化种间关系而提高间作产量[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12):2481-2489. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.01090
[40]	WERF D V W, ZHANG L Z, LI C J, et al. Comparing performance of crop species mixtures and pure stands[J]. Frontier of agricultural science and engineering, 2021, 8(3):481-489.
[41]	LOREAU M, HECTOR A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments[J]. Nature, 2001, 412:72-76.
[42]	ZHANG R Z, MENG L B, LI Y, et al. Yield and nutrient uptake dissected through complementarity and selection effects in the maize/soybean intercropping[J]. Food and energy security, 2021, 10(2):379-393.
[43]	赵建华, 孙建好, 陈亮之, 等. 玉米与不同豆科作物间作对氮素的竞争与恢复效应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2023, 29(4):640-650.
[44]	CHEN G R, YANG W Y, ZHANG G H, et al. Effects of potato/soybean intercropping on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of three soybean varieties[J]. The journal of applied ecology, 2015, 26(11), 3345-3352.
[45]	殷文, 赵财, 于爱忠, 等. 秸秆还田后少耕对小麦/玉米间作系统中种间竞争和互补的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41:633-641. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00633
[46]	WANG R N, SUN Z X, ZHANG L Z, et al. Border-row proportion determines strength of interspecific interactions and crop yields in maize/peanut strip intercropping[J]. Field crops research, 2020, 253:107819.
[47]	赵建华, 孙建好, 陈亮之, 等. 玉/豆间作产量优势中补偿效应和选择效应的角色[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10):2588-2596. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.13063
[48]	芦美, 赵吉霞, 李永梅, 等. 玉米间作马铃薯对根际土壤酶活性及团聚体稳定性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2023, 30(6):123-132.

年份	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	pH
2020	10.95	0.84	62.67	42.18	297.45	8.04
2021	10.42	1.05	58.42	41.29	165.17	8.07

年份	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	pH
2020	10.95	0.84	62.67	42.18	297.45	8.04
2021	10.42	1.05	58.42	41.29	165.17	8.07

年份	主成分	特征值	方差贡献/%	累积贡献率/%
2020	一	9.330	71.772	71.772
2020	二	3.670	28.228	100.000
2021	一	11.702	90.018	90.018
2021	二	1.298	9.982	100.000

年份	主成分	特征值	方差贡献/%	累积贡献率/%
2020	一	9.330	71.772	71.772
2020	二	3.670	28.228	100.000
2021	一	11.702	90.018	90.018
2021	二	1.298	9.982	100.000

年份	指标	土层	主成分
年份	指标	土层	一	二
2020	过氧化氢酶CAT	0~20 cm	0.886	-0.464
		20~40 cm	0.863	-0.505
		40~60 cm	0.845	-0.535
	脲酶URE	0~20 cm	0.476	0.879
		20~40 cm	-0.503	0.864
		40~60 cm	0.361	0.933
	蔗糖酶INV	0~20 cm	0.989	0.146
		20~40 cm	0.915	0.403
		40~60 cm	0.990	0.144
	酸性磷酸酶ACP	0~20 cm	0.998	0.068
		20~40 cm	0.951	0.309
		40~60 cm	0.952	0.305
	产量		0.936	-0.353
2021	过氧化氢酶CAT	0~20 cm	0.958	-0.286
		20~40 cm	0.950	-0.313
		40~60 cm	0.995	0.101
	脲酶URE	0~20 cm	0.973	0.229
		20~40 cm	0.949	-0.316
		40~60 cm	0.629	0.778
	蔗糖酶INV	0~20 cm	0.839	0.544
		20~40 cm	1.000	-0.017
		40~60 cm	0.991	-0.132
	酸性磷酸酶ACP	0~20 cm	0.984	-0.180
		20~40 cm	1.000	0.008
		40~60 cm	1.000	-0.015
	产量		0.998	-0.065