Effects of Different Maize and Soybean Planting Patterns on Crop Yield, Economic Benefit and Soil Nutrient

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0762

Abstract

Abstract:

The aim is to study the effects of different planting densities and planting ratios on biomass accumulation, nitrogen absorption, yield and economic benefits, and soil nutrient status of maize and soybean. Based on a field experiment, six treatments, including maize monoculture (M), soybean monoculture (S), maize/soybean 2:4 mode (I₁) [60000 maize plants/hm²+135000 soybean plants/hm² (D₁), 67500 maize plants/hm²+135000 soybean plants/hm² (D₂)], and maize/soybean 4:6 mode (I₂) [60000 maize plants/hm²+135000 soybean plants/hm² (D₁), 67500 maize plants/hm²+135000 soybean plants/hm² (D₂)], were designed. The results showed that maize/soybean planting pattern significantly decreased crop yield and biomass, compared to M and S, maize yield was decreased by 18.91%-25.45%, biomass was decreased by 12.62%-30.69%, soybean yield was decreased by 50.43%-56.79%, and biomass was decreased by 36.84%-46.61%. The biomass and yield of maize in I₁ were lower than that of I₂, while soybean showed the opposite trend. Under the same planting ratio, the maize yield of D₁ was significantly higher than that of D₂, while the soybean yield was not significantly different. Due to the difference of yield and input cost, the economic benefits of different planting patterns are different. Among them, the economic benefits of I₁D₁ were increased the most compared with M and S, which were 38.61% and 22.25%, respectively. In addition, different maize/soybean planting patterns could improve the soil chemical properties, especially the contents of soil alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen and organic matter in maize soil. Compared with M, I₁D₁ significantly increased the contents of alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen and organic matter by 14.17% and 16.61%, respectively. Overall, the maize/soybean 2:4 planting pattern combined with 60000 maize plants/hm²+135000 soybean plants/hm² is the optimal treatment in terms of improving crop yield and economic benefits of the system and improving soil nutrient status, etc. The research results have certain theoretical value for the application and promotion of maize/soybean combined planting pattern in Shandong Province.

Key words: maize, soybean, crop growth, economic benefit, soil nutrient

LI Xianghua, FAN Caiying, XU Qin, HOU Jian, WANG Hui, LIU Yanyan, WANG Heng, LIU Guangya, HAN Wei. Effects of Different Maize and Soybean Planting Patterns on Crop Yield, Economic Benefit and Soil Nutrient[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(6): 22-28.

Figures/Tables 6

References 34

[1]	韩晓增, 许艳丽. 大豆连作减产主要障碍因素的研究Ⅱ.连作大豆土壤有害生物的障碍效应[J]. 大豆科学, 1999, 1:48-53.
[2]	王振营, 王晓鸣. 我国玉米病虫害发生现状、趋势与防控对策[J]. 植物保护, 2019, 45(1):1-11.
[3]	KAMARA A Y, TOFA A I, ADEMULEGUN T, et al. Maize-soybean intercropping for sustainable intensification of cereal-legume cropping systems in Northern Nigeria[J]. Experimental agriculture, 2017, 55(1):73-87.
[4]	李隆. 间套作强化农田生态系统服务功能的研究进展与应用展望[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24:403-415.
[5]	崔文芳, 秦德志, 陈静, 等. 玉米大豆不同间作系统光合特性与产量边际效应[J]. 农业机械学报, 2023, 54:309-319.
[6]	YAN Z J, CHU J C, NIE J W, et al. Legume-based crop diversification with optimal nitrogen fertilization benefits subsequent wheat yield and soil quality[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 2024, 374:109171.
[7]	陈勇, 杨可攀, 段富媛, 等. 减氮对甜玉米//大豆间作系统大豆结瘤固氮特性的影响[J]. 生态科学, 2022, 41:1-8.
[8]	YAN Z J, ZHOU J, LIU C Y, et al. Legume-based crop diversification reinforces soil health and carbon storage driven by microbial biomass and aggregates[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2023, 234:105848.
[9]	ZHANG S, MENG L B, HOU J, et al. Maize/soybean intercropping improves stability of soil aggregates driven by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a black soil of Northeast China[J]. Plant and soil, 2022, 481:63-82.
[10]	LU M, ZHAO J X, LU Z R, et al. Maize-soybean intercropping increases soil nutrient availability and aggregate stability[J/OL]. Plant and soil, 2023, DOI:10.1007/s11104-023-06282-2.
[11]	杨文钰, 雍太文, 王小春, 等. 玉米-大豆带状复合种植技术体系创建与应用[J]. 中国高新科技, 2020, 15:37-40.
[12]	杨光, 王俊鹏, 钟志仁, 等. 大豆玉米带状复种下不同大豆品种及种植密度的产量比较分析[J]. 农业装备技术, 2023, 49(5):17-20.
[13]	周萍, 崔岭, 王海燕, 等. 大豆玉米带状复种模式下种植密度对玉米植株生长和产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(14):1-5. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-1029
[14]	刘均霞. 玉米/大豆间作条件下作物根际养分高效利用机理研究[D]. 贵州: 贵州大学, 2008.
[15]	陈红日, 张玉平, 刘强, 等. 玉米间套作模式对地表氮磷流失的影响与经济效益分析[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 44(2):117-123.
[16]	申磊, 王秀媛, 滕元旭, 等. 干旱区玉米大豆单间作生长及产量影响的研究[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 40(1):13-20. doi: 10.13880/j.cnki.65-1174/n.2021.21.034
[17]	储成才, 王毅, 王二涛. 植物氮磷钾养分高效利用研究现状与展望[J]. 中国科学:生命科学, 2021, 51(10):1415-1423.
[18]	李少明, 赵平, 范茂攀, 等. 玉米大豆间作条件下氮素养分吸收利用研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2004, 5:572-574.
[19]	王志梁. 不同间作模式对黄土丘陵区玉米/大豆间作体系水分和养分利用的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2014.
[20]	赵海超, 刘景辉, 张星杰. 春玉米种植密度对土壤有机碳组分的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2012, 21:1051-1056. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906(2012)06-1051-06
[21]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[22]	张晓娜, 陈平, 庞婷, 等. 玉米/豆科间作种植模式对作物干物质积累、分配及产量的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2017, 35(4):484-490.
[23]	曹娜, 于海秋, 王绍斌, 等. 高产玉米群体的冠层结构及光合特性分析[J]. 玉米科学, 2006, 5:94-97.
[24]	范元芳, 刘沁林, 王锐, 等. 玉米-大豆带状间作对大豆生长、光合荧光特性及产量的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(5):972-978. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2017.05.0972
[25]	刘朝科, 王军, 谢玉华, 等. 种植密度与施氮量对烤烟光合特性及代谢酶活性的影响[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2013, 34:458-464.
[26]	马国胜, 薛吉全, 路海东, 等. 密度对不同类型饲用玉米光合产物积累与转运的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2006, 3:46-50.
[27]	刘伟, 张吉旺, 吕鹏, 等. 种植密度对高产夏玉米登海661产量及干物质积累与分配的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(7):1301-1307.
[28]	杨檑, 郑毅, 汤利. 不同生育期玉米大豆间作土壤水势变化特征[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 26(5):689-693.
[29]	罗万宇, 唐庄峻, 任永福, 等. 行比对鲜食玉米间作鲜食大豆群体产量效益的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2019, 37(4):442-451.
[30]	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):1978-1987. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04226
[31]	雍太文, 董茜, 刘小明, 等. 施肥方式对玉米-大豆套作体系氮素吸收利用效率的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2014, 36(1):84-91.
[32]	WANG S Q, XIONG J R, YANG B Y, et al. Diversified crop rotations reduce groundwater use and enhance system resilience[J]. Agricultural water management, 2023, 276:108067.
[33]	WANG Y L, WU P N, QIAO Y B, et al. The potential for soil C sequestration and N fixation under different planting patterns depends on the carbon and nitrogen content and stability of soil aggregates[J]. Science of the total environment, 2023, 897:165430.
[34]	渠佳慧. 燕麦与箭筈豌豆不同行比例间作对饲草产质量及土壤性状的影响[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2017.

模式	处理名称	玉米种植密度/（株/hm²）	大豆种植密度/（株/hm²）
M	玉米单作	67500	-
S	大豆单作	-	195000
I₁D₁	玉米/大豆 2:4间作	60000	135000
I₁D₂	玉米/大豆 2:4间作	67500	135000
I₂D₁	玉米/大豆 4:6间作	60000	135000
I₂D₂	玉米/大豆 4:6间作	67500	135000

模式	处理名称	玉米种植密度/（株/hm²）	大豆种植密度/（株/hm²）
M	玉米单作	67500	-
S	大豆单作	-	195000
I₁D₁	玉米/大豆 2:4间作	60000	135000
I₁D₂	玉米/大豆 2:4间作	67500	135000
I₂D₁	玉米/大豆 4:6间作	60000	135000
I₂D₂	玉米/大豆 4:6间作	67500	135000

处理	玉米				大豆
处理	根	茎	叶	籽粒	根	茎	叶	籽粒
M	4.51±0.15c	6.26±0.14b	16.26±0.44d	12.55±0.26b	-	-	-	-
S	-	-	-	-	6.03±0.15b	7.28±0.08a	17.42±0.23b	63.04±0.50a
I₁D₁	11.66±1.16a	7.18±0.32a	16.49±0.19d	14.69±0.44a	6.36±0.27b	7.46±0.60a	20.22±0.64ab	59.29±0.07c
I₁D₂	8.92±0.19b	7.51±0.12a	17.32±0.46c	13.18±0.19b	7.40±0.53a	5.42±0.16c	20.44±0.17ab	59.55±1.19bc
I₂D₁	9.51±0.49b	6.51±0.30b	18.44±0.39b	14.74±0.49a	4.62±0.40c	7.76±0.37a	21.72±1.06a	60.35±0.47bc
I₂D₂	9.16±0.26b	7.29±0.28a	19.99±0.42a	14.50±0.28a	6.17±0.70b	6.21±0.01b	21.17±0.61a	61.95±0.96ab

处理	玉米				大豆
处理	根	茎	叶	籽粒	根	茎	叶	籽粒
M	4.51±0.15c	6.26±0.14b	16.26±0.44d	12.55±0.26b	-	-	-	-
S	-	-	-	-	6.03±0.15b	7.28±0.08a	17.42±0.23b	63.04±0.50a
I₁D₁	11.66±1.16a	7.18±0.32a	16.49±0.19d	14.69±0.44a	6.36±0.27b	7.46±0.60a	20.22±0.64ab	59.29±0.07c
I₁D₂	8.92±0.19b	7.51±0.12a	17.32±0.46c	13.18±0.19b	7.40±0.53a	5.42±0.16c	20.44±0.17ab	59.55±1.19bc
I₂D₁	9.51±0.49b	6.51±0.30b	18.44±0.39b	14.74±0.49a	4.62±0.40c	7.76±0.37a	21.72±1.06a	60.35±0.47bc
I₂D₂	9.16±0.26b	7.29±0.28a	19.99±0.42a	14.50±0.28a	6.17±0.70b	6.21±0.01b	21.17±0.61a	61.95±0.96ab

处理	玉米					大豆
处理	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	有效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	有机质/ (g/kg)	pH	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	有效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	有机质/ (g/kg)	pH
M	66.25±1.35b	41.74±0.08a	103.33±0.58b	13.55±0.39d	5.32±0.04b	-	-	-	-	-
S	-	-	-	-	-	63.78±1.71a	33.79±0.94a	103.67±2.31c	14.00±0.40b	5.39±0.01c
I₁D₁	75.64±3.32a	31.74±2.57b	106.33±1.53b	15.80±0.19a	5.40±0.02b	60.40±5.02a	34.22±0.59a	128.00±1.00b	16.25±0.10a	5.51±0.01a
I₁D₂	72.28±3.33a	31.93±1.48b	104.33±2.89b	15.03±0.13b	5.37±0.02b	59.08±1.67a	30.66±1.06b	99.67±1.15c	14.14±0.54b	5.44±0.01b
I₂D₁	74.01±6.27a	29.54±0.51b	106.67±2.08b	14.99±0.13b	5.59±0.05a	62.16±3.35a	29.00±0.56b	100.67±2.08c	14.12±0.35b	5.47±0.01b
I₂D₂	70.70±5.01ab	29.93±0.82b	134.00±3.61a	14.18±0.06c	5.31±0.05b	60.43±1.69a	33.25±1.20a	135.33±1.53a	14.46±0.24b	5.45±0.01b