Crops ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (5): 125-130.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2024.05.018

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Intercropping Cassava with Pumkin of Different Densities in Cassava Fields on Crop Yield, Economic Efficiency and Land Productivity

Huang Yulan1(), Liu Wenjun2, Li Yanying1, Zhou Jia1, Zhou Lingzhi1, Lao Chengying1, Li Suping1, Shen Zhangyou1(), Wei Benhui1   

  1. 1Cash Crops Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, Guangxi, China
    2Vegetable Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, Guangxi, China
  • Received:2023-05-11 Revised:2023-07-28 Online:2024-10-15 Published:2024-10-16

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

234

Abstract:

In order to explore the efficient cassava-pumpkin intercropping mode suitable for Guangxi region, five treatments were set up in the experiment, which were cassava monoculture (C), pumpkin monoculture (plant spacing 60 cm, P60), and cassava intercropping pumpkin (three planting densities, pumpkin plant spacing were 40, 60, 80 cm, respectively, and were recorded as CP40, CP60, CP80), each treatment was repeated three times. The effects of pumpkin intercropping with different densities on yield, economic benefit and land productivity were studied. The results showed that plant height, stem diameter and number of tubers per plant under intercropping were lower than C treatment. The cassava yield and its components under intercropping were no significant effect compared with C treatment. The pumpkin yield of three intercropping patterns significantly reduced compared to P60 treatment, with pumpkin yield of CP60 being the least reduced. The total crop yield of the five treatments were in the order of CP60 > CP80 > CP40 > C > P60. The total crop yield, total income and net income of three intercropping patterns were significantly higher than C and P60 treatments. The contribution of cassava to the total crop yield of intercropping system was bigger than pumpkin. The land equivalent ratios of three intercropping patterns were 1.68, 1.82 and 1.69, respectively, which increased land equivalent ratio by 68% to 82%, indicted that the system had the intercropping advantage. The study showed that the cassava-pumpkin intercropping system with pumpkin plants spacing 60 cm was considered as the most suitable cassava-pumpkin intercropping pattern to promotion in Guangxi, which had the highest land equivalent ratio, high yield and economic efficiency.

Key words: Cassava, Pumpkin, Intercropping, Yield, Economic efficiency

Table 1

Effects of cassava intercropping pumpkin on yield components of cassava"

处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 茎径
Stem diameter
(cm)		 薯长
Length of
tuber (cm)		 薯茎
Diameter of
tuber (cm)		 单株结薯数
Number of tubers
per plant		 单薯重
Weight of single
tuber (kg)		 单株薯重
Weight of tubers
per plant (kg)
C 318.2±3.4a 3.68±0.04a 28.3±0.4a 5.08±0.08a 13.3±0.4a 0.39±0.02a 5.17±0.25a
P60 － － － － － － －
CP40 317.9±3.3a 3.59±0.01ab 26.2±1.3a 5.18±0.15a 11.5±0.7b 0.41±0.04a 4.73±0.20a
CP60 302.2±4.0b 3.51±0.14ab 30.1±2.3a 5.54±0.17a 9.7±0.2c 0.53±0.07a 5.09±0.55a
CP80 296.9±6.0b 3.34±0.11b 28.5±0.9a 5.10±0.14a 11.2±0.4b 0.43±0.05a 4.81±0.42a

Table 2

Effects of cassava intercropping pumpkin on cassava yield and quality"

处理
Treatment		 淀粉含量
Starch content (%)		 薯干率
Dry matter rate (%)		 鲜薯产量
Fresh tuber yield (t/hm2)		 淀粉产量
Starch yield (t/hm2)		 薯干产量
Dry tuber yield (t/hm2)
C 27.3±0.3a 27.8±0.2a 57.42±2.79a 15.69±0.91a 15.98±0.88a
P60 － － － － －
CP40 26.4±0.3a 27.2±0.2a 52.54±2.22a 13.85±0.43a 14.27±0.49a
CP60 27.4±1.1a 27.9±0.8a 56.50±6.09a 15.46±1.55a 15.74±1.58a
CP80 27.2±0.6a 27.7±0.4a 53.39±4.67a 14.50±1.28a 14.80±1.29a

Fig.1

Effects of cassava intercropping pumpkin on pumpkin yield Different uppercase and lowercase letters indicate that the differences between treatments reach the highly significant (P < 0.01) and significant (P < 0.05) levels, respectively, the same below."

Fig.2

Effects of intercropping patterns on total yield in intercropping systems"

Table 3

"

处理
Treatment		 种植成本
Planting costs		 鲜薯收入
Fresh tuber income		 南瓜收入
Pumpkin income		 总收入
Total income		 净收入
Net income
C 1.00 4.02±0.19aA － 4.02±0.19cC 3.92±0.19cC
P60 1.60 － 6.06±0.02aA 6.06±0.02bB 4.46±0.02bBC
CP40 2.60 3.68±0.16aA 4.64±0.05cC 8.32±0.15aA 5.72±0.15aAB
CP60 2.60 3.95±0.43aA 5.06±0.13bB 9.02±0.56aA 6.42±0.56aA
CP80 2.60 3.74±0.33aA 4.61±0.03cC 4.61±0.32aA 5.75±0.32aAB

Fig.3

LER of cassava intercropping with pumpkin for different pumpkin planting densities"

[1] Tize I, Fotso A K, Nukenine E N, et al. New cassava germplasm for food and nutritional security in central Afica. Scientific Reports, 2021,11:73994.
[2] Ben-Hur S R, Adalton M F, Bruno G, et al. Liming and phosphorus fertilization increase cassava root yield without affecting its cooking time. Agronomy Journal, 2021, 113(5):4386-4395.
doi: 10.1002/agj2.20842
[3] Wahyuni T S, Noerwijati K. Tuber yield morphology and chemical properties variability of sweet cassava germplasm. Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural Science), 2021, 6(2):77-87.
[4] 王惠君, 王文泉, 李文彬, 等. 木薯的抗寒性及北移栽培技术研究进展综述. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(7):1437-1443.
[5] 黄渝岚, 龙盛风, 叶兴枝, 等. 木薯在湖北恩施的农艺性状及产量品质研究. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(9):46-55.
[6] 刘海清, 刘恩平, 李海亮. 中国木薯产业市场拓展策略研究. 湖北农业科学, 2012, 51(21):4908-4911.
[7] 封亮, 王淑彬, 杨文亭, 等. 带宽、行比配置对玉米农艺性状及干物质积累影响. 江西农业大学学报, 2020, 42(3):429-437.
[8] Zhang W P, Li Z X, Gao S N, et al. Resistance vs. surrender:Different responses of functional traits of soybean and peanut to intercropping with maize. Field Crops Research, 2023,291:108779.
[9] Mason S C, Leihner D E, Vorst J J. Cassava-cowpea and cassava- peanut intercropping. I. yield and land use efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 1986, 78(1):43-46.
[10] 刘子凡, 苏必孟, 黄洁, 等. 木薯花生间作模式养分吸收与利用优势的比较. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 45 (5):478-484.
[11] 刘子凡, 苏必孟, 黄洁, 等. 木薯花生不同间作模式对木薯地土壤肥力的影响. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25):102-107.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0083
[12] 熊军, 闫海锋, 韦绍丽, 等. 木薯+花生间作对作物光合特性、农艺性状和产量的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2016, 44(6):165-168.
[13] 陈晨, 刘子凡, 黄洁, 等. 木薯和花生间作模式下2种作物光合与干物质积累特性. 热带作物学报, 2022, 43(8):1613-1619.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2022.08.010
[14] 林洪鑫, 潘晓华, 袁展汽, 等. 施氮和木薯-花生间作对作物产量和经济效益的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(4):947-958.
[15] 唐秀梅, 钟瑞春, 揭红科, 等. 间作花生对木薯碳氮代谢产物及关键酶活性的影响. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(3):94-98.
[16] 唐秀梅, 钟瑞春, 蒋菁, 等. 木薯/花生间作对根际土壤微生态的影响. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2015, 34(1):117-124.
[17] 徐海强, 黄洁, 魏云霞, 等. 木薯与花生间作对产量和养分的影响. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 44(6):575-579.
[18] 孙彬杰, 姜舒雅, 林萱, 等. 木薯间作甜瓜模式对木薯生长及土壤酶活性的影响. 热带作物学报, 2023, 44(10):2016-2024.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2023.10.012
[19] 闫庆祥, 魏云霞, 黄洁, 等. 木薯/大豆不同间作模式对木薯光合生理特性、产量的影响研究. 热带农业科学, 2017, 37 (12):10-15.
[20] Sundari T, Purwantoro, Artari R, et al. Response of soybean genotype in intercropping with cassava. Journal Ilmu Pertanian Indonesia, 2020, 25(1):129-137.
[21] 刘丽娟, 黄洁, 魏云霞, 等. 木薯‖玉米间作模式对木薯产量、薯构型及土壤性质的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(11):22-35.
[22] Mbah E U. Sequential cropping effects of vegetable cowpea on cassava in cassava-cowpea intercrop, Umudike, southeast Nigeria. Journal of Agronomy, 2018, 17(2):123-135.
[23] 李春光, 陆坤典, 李兆贵, 等. 木薯套种西瓜或南瓜的高产高效栽培模式. 江西农业学报, 2011, 23(9):30-32.
[24] 宋付平, 覃新导, 冯朝阳, 等. 木薯间作蜜本南瓜高效立体种植技术. 广东农业科学, 2011(24):16-17.
[25] 黄洁, 魏云霞, 刘丽娟, 等. 华南9号食用木薯间作花生、玉米对产量性状的影响. 热带农业科学, 2022, 42(7):1-5.
[26] Zhang L Z, Van der Werf W, Zhang S P, et al. Growth, yield and quality of wheat and cotton in relay strip intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2007,103:178-188.
[27] 刘子凡, 黄洁, 魏云霞, 等. 不同木薯/花生模式下的产量表现及其经济效益产出研究. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(1):65-69.
[1] Hao Qingting, Gao Wei, Zhang Zeyan, Yan Hubin, Zhu Huijun, Zhang Yaowen. The Effects of Iron Fertilizer Application on Yield and Fe Concent of Grains in Mung Bean [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 105-109.
[2] Sun Guangxu, Liu Ying, Wang Xinyi, Kong Deyong, Wei Na, Xing Liwen, Guo Wei. Effects of Population Density and Fulvic Acid on Yield and Nutritional Quality of Kidney Bean [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 110-118.
[3] Wang Shanshan, Yang Yulei, Liu Feihu, Yang Yang, Tang Kailei, Li Tao, Niu Longjiang, Du Guanghui. Effects of Concentrations and Treatment Periods of Polyazole on Inflorescence and Leaves Yield and Cannabidiol Content of Industrial Hemp [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 119-124.
[4] Tian Qinqin, Zhuo Le, Chen Nana, Zheng Dechao, Wu Xiaojing, Yu Peng, Chen Pingping, Yi Zhenxie. Effects of Calcium-Magnesium Hydrotalcite on Cadmium Content in Brown Rice of Double-Cropping Rice and Soil Characteristics [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 131-139.
[5] Mu Jianguo, Wang Peng, Liu Yantao, Cui Jiawei, Chen Yanfang, Wan Sumei, Chen Guihong. Effects of Different Harvesting Periods on the Commerciality and Yield of Edible Sunflower [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 146-151.
[6] Li Hongliang, Sun Yuyou, Wei Caiqiang, Liu Dan, Xie Zhong, Cheng Dujuan, Qu Jinling, Song Ze, Meng Xianghai, Zhao Yuntong, Shi Xinrui. Effects of Controlled Irrigation and Fertilization on Growth, Yield and Quality of Japonica Rice in Cold Region [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 152-158.
[7] Cao Shaona, Wu Lixiao, Guan Yaobing, Wang Kexiong. Effects of Different Types and Dosage of Bacterial Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Broccoli [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 159-166.
[8] Li Junzhi, Wang Xiaodong, Dou Shuang, Xin Zongxu, Wu Hongsheng, Zhou Yufei, Xiao Jibing. Effects of L-Tryptophan on Growth and Development of Sorghum under Low Nitrogen Condition [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 175-180.
[9] Liu Zichen, Shang Liyan, Ye Jiayu, Sheng Tian, Li Ruijie, Deng Jun, Tian Xiaohai, Zhang Yunbo, Huang Liying. Effects of Dense Planting with Reduced Nitrogen Input Cultivation on the Grain Quality of Hybrid Indica Rice [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 194-203.
[10] Zhou Qi, Wu Fang, Wang Zhenlong, Xu Zhipeng, Deng Chaochao, Shi Zhiguo, Zhang Jing, Su Cuicui, Yu Yalin, Zhou Yanfang. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Biochar Application Rate Interaction on Growth and Root-Knot Nematode Disease of Greenhouse Tomatoes [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 212-219.
[11] Huang Yanxia, Chen Genhui, Lin Jianfu, Guo Qimao, Huang Kangde, Silang Quncuo, Xie Lijun, Lin Zilong. Study of Highly Efficient Cultivation Technique of Inter Cropping Sweet Potato Longzi 9 in Tobacco Field [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 228-234.
[12] Zhou Xue, Han Fang, Su Leping, Li Xingxing, Niu Hongwei, Guo Wei, Yuan Hongʼan. Effects of Planting Density on Agronomic Traits and Yield of Spring Foxtail Millet [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 241-246.
[13] Dong Mingyu, Zheng Hongfeng, Zhu Zhe. Effects of Different Endosperm Phenotypes on Agronomic Traits and Yield in Sorghum [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 29-34.
[14] He Jiahui, Li Yanfeng, Yan Tianze, Zhang Xuanwen, Qin Peng, Guo Jinyou, Wang Kai, Liu Xionglun, Yang Yuanzhu. The Effects of Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on the Yield and Quality of Super Rice Weiliangyou 8612 [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 73-79.
[15] Wang Yifan, Lin Tao, Wang Dong, Wang Xincui, Zhang Hao, Liu Haijun, Chen Maoguang, Tang Qiuxiang. Effects of Biodegradable Film and Irrigation Quota on Soil Hydrothermal Characteristics in Cotton Field [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 86-95.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!