| To research the effects on growth, dry matter accumulation, photosyntheticcharacteristics yield and quality in maize and peanut group and wind erosion prevention in theintercropping system with different maize and peanut proportions,6trial treatments such10:10maize-peanut intercropping (T1),8:16maize-peanut intercropping (T2),2:10maize-peanut intercropping (T3), maize monoculture （CK1）and peanut monoculture（CK2）were designed. The main results were as follows:1Differences on maize and peanut plant growth and development in the differentproportoions intercropping systemEffects on plants growth and development in intercropping systems were significant.Maize grew more quickly in early growth, but became slow lately. Intercropping made maizeplant height shorter than monoculture, that of interior row was higher than border row. Plantstem perimeter of T3was the thinnest one. Maize’s leaves area duration of T3was longer thanothers, border row>interior row. In intercropping systems, peanut main stem height, first pairof lateral branches length and second pair of lateral branches length all presented significantlyhigher than monoculture, border row>interior row, T1rose with the most obvious changes.Leaves area per peanut plant was significantly lower than monoculture, border row>interiorrow. Leaves area of T3had the most obvious decline, while that of the border row declinedfaster than the interior row.2Differences on maize and peanut dry matter accumulation in the different proportoionsintercropping systemIntercropping also improved the dry matter accumulation of maize and peanut.Compared with monoculture, dry matter accumulation of whole maize plant in border rowwas greater than in interior row, T2increased in the largest range, T1was in the smallest.Because of different densities, dry matter accumulation of population in T3was the biggestamong all treatments, T1was the smallest. From logistic curve model, the time of maximumvalue of dry matter accumulation rate in monoculture occurred early, border row was laterthan interior. Peanut plant dry matter accumulation was dropped sharply in the intercroppingsystem, the border row was greater than the interior row. Dry matter accumulation ofpopulation presented as T3>T2>T1, each treatment was lower than monoculture. Using thelogistic equation, the time of maximum value of dry matter accumulation rate in monocultureoccurred lately, border row was later than interior, the max dry matter accumulation ratedecreased more than intercropping systems. 3Differences on maize and peanut photosynthetic charaterstics in the different proportoionsintercropping systemResults revealed that LAI of maize was climbed dramatically by intercropping, presentedas border row>interior row, T3was the highest. LAI of peanut was presented as monoculture>interior row> border row, LAI of T1began to decline early, leaves duration occurred fasterthan others. Chlorophyll content of intercropping maize leaves was more than monoculture inthe early growth, while less in the late growth, border row> interior row. Chlorophyll contentof intercropping peanut leaves was less than monoculture, while interior row was more thanborder row. Soluble carbohydrate content of maize leaves experienced a steady rise in theintercropping systems, interior row>border row, T1had a sharply increase. Intercroppingpeanut leaves soluble carbohydrate content was higher than monoculture, interior row>borderrow.When compared to their monoculture treatments, intercropping increased maize andpeanut PAR capture ratio. Maize low layer and ear layer PAR capture ratio of T3was thehighest, T2followed, T1was the minimum. Peanut low layer and middle layer PAR captureratio of T1was the highest, T2followed, T3was the minimum. Pn, Gs and Tr of maize leaveswere all presented as T3>T2>T1> monoculture, border row> interior row, Ci had the oppositeeffect. Pn, Gs and Tr of peanut leaves were all presented as monoculture>T3>T2>T1, interiorrow> border row. Fv/Fm and Fv/Fo of maize leaves were decreased in intercropping system,interior row> border row, those of peanut leaves had the opposite effect.4Differences on maize and peanut yield and quality in the different proportoionsintercropping systemThe results indicated the yield of maize was increased by intercropping, while the yieldof peanut was decreased, Maize grain yield and biological yield were presented as T3>T2>T1,border row> interior row. It reduced bare tip length and increase grains per ear, but littleinfluence on ear length, perimeter and100-grain weight in the intercropping system withdifferent maize and peanut proportions, decrease of T3was more than others. Peanut podyield and biological yield were presented as T3>T2>T1, interior row> border row. Podsnumber per plant, kernel ratio and100-kernel weight in interior row were better than borderrow, blighted pods number ratio per plant had the opposite trend, change of T1was mostsignificant.Protein content and fat content of maize kernel increased by intercropping, that ofborder row was higher than interior row; starch content of border row decreased more thaninterior row, T3changed in amplitude. Protein content and oleic content of peanut kernelincreased in intercropping system, that of border row was higher than interior row; oil content and linoleic content showed the opposite trend, change of T1was most.Except T1in2010,LER from other treatments were greater than1, which showed intercropping advantage. LERof T3was1.102with increasing rate of10.2%. The economic benefit was more than maizemonoculture, but less than peanut monoculture. In the intercropping system with differentmaize and peanut proportions, T3(2:10) had the highest economic benefit, T1(10:10) was inminimum.5Differences on soil wind erosion in the different proportoions intercropping systemThere was a great impact on the physical properties of surface soil in the intercroppingsystems. Compared to their monoculture treatments, soil desertification of peanut fielddecreased, while maize field increased, the content of granularity in>0.05mm of windwardside was higher than that of leeward side, the content of granularity in0.05-0.02mm,0.02-0.002mm and <0.002mm showed the opposite trend. Soil moisture content in maize fieldwas lower than monoculture, that of peanut field was higher, windward side was higher thanleeward side, T1changed in a large range. Soil bulk density was increased by intercropping inmaize field, while decreased in peanut field, that of windward side was higher than that ofleeward side, as compared to monoculture, T3was lest affected among all treatments. Soilporosity presented an opposite trend with bulk density. When compared to monoculture, thecontent of granularity in0.05-0.02mm increased least of maize field and decreased most ofpeanut field in T1treatment. Soil wind erosion amount of windward side was more than thatof leeward side, intercropping rose wind erosion of maize filed, which it declined that ofpeanut field. The degree of soil wind erosion amount reduced in T1treatment was the largest.Generally speaking, economic benefit was lower when maize and peanut wereintercropped than peanut monoculture treatment, but in the ecological point of view,intercropping could be reduced the degree of soil wind erosion, retard the detriment of thepeanut continuous cropping, and it was more conducive to the agriculture sustainabledevelopment. In this experiments, maize and peanut2:10intercropping could have the mostprotect of economic benefits; for protection wind erosion, maize and peanut10:10intercropping and maize and peanut8:16intercropping were better,8:16was more than10:10. |
PDF Full Text Request