Effects of Different Chewing Cane-peanut Intercropping Treatments on Yield, Economic Benefit and Soil Physicochemical Properties

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.12.004

Abstract

Abstract:

A one-factor field experiment of randomized block design was carried out to investigate the yield, economic benefit of chewing cane and peanut, as well as the soil physicochemical properties before planting (BP) and after harvest (AH) under different chewing cane-peanut intercropping treatments. Three intercropping treatments including chewing cane-peanut (1:2) intercropping (T₂), chewing cane-peanut (1:1) intercropping (T₁) and chewing cane mono-cropping (T₀) were designed. Compared with T₀, chewing cane-peanut intercropping patterns (T₂ and T₁) had no significant effect on the agronomic traits yield of chewing cane and peanut. Analysis results on the soil physicochemical index before planting (BP) and after harvest (AH) indicated that the chewing cane-peanut intercropping patterns could significantly increase soil organic matter and soil available nitrogen contents, but decrease soil available potassium contents, and the effect of T₂ was more obvious than that of T₁. The economic benefit of chewing cane-peanut intercropping patterns could significantly increase the total output and economic benefit. The benefits of chewing cane-peanut (1:2) intercropping (T₂) was significantly higher than that of chewing cane-peanut (1:1) intercropping (T₁). The land equivalent ratio (LER) of chewing cane-peanut intercropping patterns of T₂ and T₁ was 1.94 and 1.72, respectively. It is suggested that LER of chewing cane-peanut intercropping patterns was significantly higher than that of T₀. The correlation analysis of output, cost and profit among the three chewing cane-peanut intercropping patterns showed that chewing cane-peanut intercropping partly increased planting cost, but significantly enhanced the gross output and profit. In conclusion, chewing cane-peanut (1:2) intercropping (T₂) had minimal impact on the yield of chewing cane and peanut, and soil physicochemical properties, and also the best economic benefit among the treatments.

Key words: chewing cane-peanut intercropping, yield, soil physicochemical properties, economic benefit, land equivalent ratio

CLC Number:

S344.2

LIU Yufeng,PAN Zengbao,SU Tianming,ZENG Chengcheng,LIANG Zhiheng. Effects of Different Chewing Cane-peanut Intercropping Treatments on Yield, Economic Benefit and Soil Physicochemical Properties[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(12): 2333-2340.

Figures/Tables 7

References 22

[1]	王水琦, 汤浩, 曾东火 . 果蔗生产概况及相关研究新进展[J]. 江西农业学报, 2001,13(2):54-59.
[2]	王继华, 曹干, 张剑亮 , 等. 我国果蔗产业的现状与可持续发展[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 2013(5):56-61.
[3]	汤浩, 王子琳, 潘世明 , 等. 果蔗主要品种的特征特性研究初报[J]. 江西农业学报, 2001,13(4):29-34.
[4]	谭显平 . 我国水果型甘蔗育种研究的现状和今后的研究方向[J]. 甘蔗, 2004,11(1):24-30.
[5]	李志贤, 王建武, 杨文亭 , 等. 甘蔗/大豆间作减量施氮对甘蔗产量、品质及经济效益的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(3):713-719.
[6]	杨文亭, 李志贤, 赖健宁 , 等. 甘蔗-大豆间作和减量施氮对甘蔗产量和主要农艺性状的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2014,40(3):556-562. DOI URL
[7]	韦贵剑, 陆文娟, 彭天缘 , 等. 甘蔗间套种花生最佳模式探讨[J]. 南方农业学报, 2015,46(6):1007-1011.
[8]	赵自东, 贾应明, 李言春 , 等. 甘蔗与不同大豆品种间套种试验总结[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 2012(3):16-18.
[9]	焦念元, 宁堂原, 赵春 , 等. 玉米花生间作复合体系光合特性的研究[J]. 作物学报, 2006,32(6):917-923.
[10]	吴才文, 杨洪昌, 陈学宽 , 等. 苗期间种黄豆对甘蔗生长及产量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2004,17(5):645-650.
[11]	邓虹, 郭伟, 曾宪堂 , 等. 四川丘陵旱坡地用养结合种植模式研究[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2012(5):1-2, 5.
[12]	黄桂茹, 黄振兴 . 甘蔗间种豆科作物试验效果初报[J]. 广西蔗糖, 1996(4):27-29.
[13]	谭裕模, 江泽普, 刘斌 , 等. 间种对不同基因型甘蔗生长产量影响与经济效益分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2010,31(11):1895-1901.
[14]	顾业连, 黄勇 . 甘蔗间种花生高产栽培技术[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2013(4):48-49.
[15]	何毅波, 李松, 刘俊仙 , 等. 果蔗新品种桂果蔗1号高产栽培技术[J]. 中国糖料, 2017,39(6):54-56, 59.
[16]	Willey R W . Intercropping: its importance and research needs. Part Ⅰ, competition and yield advantages[J]. Field Crops Research, 1979(32):1-10.
[17]	Singh A K, Lal M, Suman A . Effect of intercropping in sugarcane (Saccharum complex hybrid) on productivity of plant cane-ratoon system[J]. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 2008,53(2):140-144.
[18]	Kamruzzaman M . Factors affecting profitability of sugarcane production as monoculture and as intercrop in selected areas in Bangladesh[J]. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 2007,32(3):433-444. DOI URL
[19]	孟庆宝, 方锋学, 周艳霞 , 等. 甘蔗间种菜用大豆对蔗田土壤养分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011,27(5):186-189.
[20]	Bokhtiar S M, Hossain M S, Mahmud K , et al. Site specific nutrient management for sugarcane-potato and sugarcane-onion in intercropping systems[J]. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 2003,2(17):1205-1208. DOI URL PMID
[21]	吴建明, 李杨瑞, 杨丽涛 , 等. 甘蔗间种大豆的试验[J]. 作物杂志, 2011(5):103-105.
[22]	韦铄星, 刘晓蔚, 张烨 , 等. 桉树-药材复合经营模式生态经济效益研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014,34(11):84-89.

处理 Treatment	株高 Height/cm	有效茎 Millable stalks/(10⁴ plant·hm^-2)	茎径 Stem diameter/mm	单株茎重 Weight of stem/(kg·plant^-1)	产量 Yield/(t·hm^-2)
T₂	203.7±17.6^b	4.5±0.8^ab	30.6±3.8^a	1.45±0.36^ab	108.3±7.6^a
T₁	230.6±15.6^a	4.0±0.8^b	31.3±2.4^a	1.68±0.34^a	111.6±5.7^a
T₀	193.8±21.3^b	4.8±1.7^a	30.8±4.0^a	1.37±0.41^b	108.3±8.3^a

处理 Treatment	株高 Height/cm	有效茎 Millable stalks/(10⁴ plant·hm^-2)	茎径 Stem diameter/mm	单株茎重 Weight of stem/(kg·plant^-1)	产量 Yield/(t·hm^-2)
T₂	203.7±17.6^b	4.5±0.8^ab	30.6±3.8^a	1.45±0.36^ab	108.3±7.6^a
T₁	230.6±15.6^a	4.0±0.8^b	31.3±2.4^a	1.68±0.34^a	111.6±5.7^a
T₀	193.8±21.3^b	4.8±1.7^a	30.8±4.0^a	1.37±0.41^b	108.3±8.3^a

处理 Treatment	株高 Height/cm	单株分支数 The number of branch per plant	单株饱果数 Number of full fruits per plant	单株荚果重 Pod weight per plant/g	饱果率 Full pod rate /%	百果重 100-pod weight /g	产量 Yield/(kg·hm^-2)
T₂	31.8±3.6^a	10.7±1.6^a	10.2±1.3^a	21.8±1.8^b	75.4±5.3^b	109.4±6.7^b	2311.2±75.8^a
T₁	32.7±3.3^a	11.2±2.7^a	10.5±2.1^a	24.5±2.2^a	81.3±2.4^a	112.5±7.8^a	2231.0±56.8^a
T₀	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

处理 Treatment	株高 Height/cm	单株分支数 The number of branch per plant	单株饱果数 Number of full fruits per plant	单株荚果重 Pod weight per plant/g	饱果率 Full pod rate /%	百果重 100-pod weight /g	产量 Yield/(kg·hm^-2)
T₂	31.8±3.6^a	10.7±1.6^a	10.2±1.3^a	21.8±1.8^b	75.4±5.3^b	109.4±6.7^b	2311.2±75.8^a
T₁	32.7±3.3^a	11.2±2.7^a	10.5±2.1^a	24.5±2.2^a	81.3±2.4^a	112.5±7.8^a	2231.0±56.8^a
T₀	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

处理 Treatment	花生产值 Peanut output/ (yuan?hm^-2)	果蔗产值 Chewing cane output/ (yuan?hm^-2)	总产值 Total output/ (yuan?hm^-2)	成本 Cost/ (yuan?hm^-2)	利润 Profit/(yuan?hm^-2)
T₂	18 490^a	129 960^b	148 450^ab	81 840^a	66 610^b
T₁	17 848^a	133 920^a	151 768^a	81 120^ab	70 648^a
T₀	—	129 960^b	129 960^b	80 400^a	49 560^c