Crops ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1): 104-111.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2021.01.015

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Sugarcane Rotation Green Fodder Corn and Peanut on Sugarcane Growth and Soil Properties

Fan Yegeng(), Chen Rongfa, Yan Haifeng, Zhou Huiwen, Weng Mengling, Huang Xing, Luo Ting, Zhou Zhongfeng, Qiu Lihang(), Wu Jianming()   

  1. Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Biotechnology and Genetic Improvement, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangxi Key Laboratory of Guangxi Sugarcane Genetic Improvement, Sugarcane Research Center, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, Guangxi, China
  • Received:2020-05-03 Revised:2020-06-20 Online:2021-02-15 Published:2021-02-23
  • Contact: Qiu Lihang,Wu Jianming E-mail:fanyegeng@163.com;quihang163@163.com;wujianming2004@126.com

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

247

Abstract:

The effects of different rotation patterns on soil nutrients, microbial and enzyme activities of sugarcane fields and main agronomic traits of sugarcane were studied in order to provide a theoretical basis for alleviating the obstacles of sugarcane continuous cropping in sugarcane areas in China. In this experiment, three cropping modes were set: sugarcane continuous cropping (A), green-fed corn-green-fed corn-sugarcane rotation (B), and peanut-peanut-sugarcane rotation (C). Each pattern was set up with three repeats. Before and after rotation, the soil nutrient content, microbial number and related enzyme activities of the cultivated layer of sugarcane field were investigated. The main agronomic data of sugarcane production were investigated, and the economic benefits of crops under different models were analyzed. The test results showed that, compared with A treatment, B treatment significantly increased the contents of soil total nitrogen and available phosphorus, the activities of catalase and urease, and bacterial count, while C treatment significantly increased the soil pH, the contents of hydrolyzable nitrogen, organic matter and available potassium, the activities of invertase, acid protease, acid phosphatase and cellulase, significantly reduced the number of soil fungi by 2.47×104/g. The agronomic traits and quality of sugarcane were better than those of continuous cropping under the two rotation modes. The emergence rate, tillering rate, yield and sugar content of B and C increased significantly or extremely significantly than A. Further correlation analysis showed that soil nutrients and microbial biomass were significantly positively correlated with related enzyme activities. Rotation could promote the quality and efficiency of sugarcane production due to the increase of the number of microorganisms and related enzyme activities in the soil, further improving the pH value of the acid soil in the sugarcane production area, accelerating the release of effective nutrients in the soil, and thus promoting the growth and development of sugarcane to alleviate the obstacles of continuous cropping and achieve economic growth.

Key words: Sugarcane rotation, Sugarcane growth, Soil microorganisms, Soil enzyme activity, Soil nutrients

Table 1

Effects of different planting modes on agronomic characteristics of sugarcane yield"

处理
Treatment		 出苗率
Emergence rate (%)		 分蘖率
Tillering rate (%)		 株高
Plant height (cm)		 茎径
Stem diameter (mm)		 有效茎数(条/hm2)
Effective stem number (Tiao/hm2)		 产量
Yield (t/hm2)
A 67.2bB 92.4cB 263cB 27.6aA 66 715bB 80.5bB
B 70.6aA 101.9aA 300aA 28.1aA 71 115aA 86.7aA
C 69.3aAB 97.5bAB 289bA 27.4aA 68 360bAB 84.3aAB

Table 2

Effects of different planting modes on sugarcane quality %"

处理
Treatment		 蔗茎锤度
Brix of sugarcane		 蔗糖分
Sugar content		 蔗汁视纯度
Sugarcane apparent purity
A 21.47aA 15.04bA 74.79bB
B 22.27aA 15.67aA 84.74aA
C 22.23aA 15.51abA 84.89aA

Table 3

Effects of different planting modes on soil nutrient content"

处理
Treatment		 pH 全氮
Total
nitrogen (%)		 全钾
Total
potassium (%)		 全磷
Total
phosphorus (%)		 水解性氮
Hydrolyzable
nitrogen (mg/kg)		 有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)		 有效磷
Available
phosphorus (mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available
potassium (mg/kg)
A 4.67aA 0.09bA 0.14bB 0.15aA 85.0bA 21.0bA 31.3cB 83.3bB
B 5.23aA 0.106aA 0.15bAB 0.18aA 101.3abA 24.1aA 60.4aA 166.0aAB
C 5.73aA 0.102abA 0.17aA 0.17aA 108.3aA 24.5aA 49.4bA 207.3aA

Table 4

Effects of different planting modes on number of soil microorganisms ×104/g"

处理
Treatment		 细菌数量
Bacteria number		 真菌数量
Fungi number		 放线菌数量
Actinomycete number		 真菌/细菌比值
The ratio of fungi/bacteria
A 20.70bA 4.80aA 1.57bB 0.23
B 66.00aA 3.43bAB 3.17aA 0.05
C 62.00aA 2.33bB 3.17aA 0.04

Table 5

Effects of different planting modes on soil enzyme activities"

处理
Treatment		 过氧化氢酶
Catalase
[μmol/(d·g)]		 脲酶
Urease
[μg/(d·g)]		 脱氢酶
Dehydrogenase
[μg/(d·g)]		 蔗糖酶
Sucrase
[mg/(d·g)]		 酸性蛋白酶
Acid protease
[mg/(d·g)]		 酸性磷酸酶
Acid phosphatase
[μmol/(d·g)]		 纤维素酶
Cellulase
[mg/(d·g)]
A 13.10cB 409.39bB 33.36aA 12.71aA 2.32bB 16.34cC 15.97cB
B 23.96aA 928.50aA 35.82aA 18.17aA 2.59bAB 20.28bB 24.84bAB
C 19.23bAB 822.67aA 35.34aA 20.86aA 3.26aA 23.27aA 33.53aA

Table 6

Correlation between soil enzyme activities and soil nutrient contents"

项目
Item		 过氧化氢酶
Catalase		 脲酶
Urease		 脱氢酶
Dehydrogenase		 蔗糖酶
Sucrase		 酸性蛋白酶
Acid protease		 酸性磷酸酶
Acid phosphatase		 纤维素酶
Cellulase
水解性氮
Hydrolyzable nitrogen		 0.573 0.671* 0.588 0.462 0.757* 0.839** 0.707*
有机质
Organic matter		 0.577 0.854** 0.408 0.666 0.433 0.695* 0.676*
有效磷
Available phosphorus		 0.915** 0.851** 0.605 0.670* 0.428 0.600 0.649
速效钾
Available potassium		 0.584 0.798** 0.548 0.464 0.640 0.918** 0.801**

Table 7

Correlation between soil enzyme activities and soil microbial number"

微生物
Organism		 过氧化氢酶
Catalase		 脲酶
Urease		 脱氢酶
Dehydrogenase		 蔗糖酶
Sucrase		 酸性蛋白酶
Acid protease		 酸性磷酸酶
Acid phosphatase		 纤维素酶
Cellulase
细菌Bacteria -0.756* -0.648 -0.542 -0.780* -0.658 -0.662 -0.798**
真菌Fungi -0.460 -0.681* -0.719* -0.491 -0.828** -0.975** -0.775*
放线菌Actinomycete -0.778* -0.853** -0.586 -0.703* -0.638 -0.819** -0.823**

Table 8

Comparison of economic benefits of different planting models"

处理
Treatment		 作物
Crop		 2018-2019年产量
Yield in 2018-2019
(t/hm2)		 总产值(元/hm2)
Total output
value (yuan/hm2)		 总成本(元/hm2)
Total cost
(yuan/hm2)		 总收益(元/hm2)
Total revenue
(yuan/hm2)		 比A增收(元/hm2)
Increase revenue
than A (yuan/hm2)		 比A增长
Increased than
A (%)
A 甘蔗/甘蔗 80.5/82.0 81 250 22 500 58 750 0 0
B 玉米/甘蔗 150.0/86.7 95 850 33 000 62 850 4 100 7.0
C 花生/甘蔗 12.0/84.3 90 150 27 000 63 150 4 400 7.5
[1] 谭宏伟. 热带亚热带作物施肥理论与实践. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2017: 54.
[2] 苏利荣, 何铁光, 苏天明, 等. 甘蔗-绿豆间作压青还田和施氮水平对甘蔗性状的影响. 华南农业大学学报, 2019,40(3):20-28.
[3] 李贤宇, 周洁琼, 兰靖, 等. 土壤中有毒物质对宿根甘蔗苗期黄化的效应研究. 湖北农业科学, 2016,55(14):3641-3647.
[4] Chen G F, Liu Z, Huang Y Y, et al. Factors responsible for sugarcane ratoon chlorosis in acid soil and its management in Guangxi Province of China. Sugar Tech, 2016,18(5):500-504.
doi: 10.1007/s12355-016-0425-2
[5] 吴静妮. 土壤理化性质与甘蔗连作障碍的相关性研究. 南宁:广西大学, 2016: 41-47.
[6] 杨业彬. 有机肥无机肥对连作甘蔗影响效应研究. 南宁:广西大学, 2017: 40-41.
[7] 陆进佳, 潘义棉. 华海蔗区甘蔗生产存在的一些问题及其发展对策. 甘蔗糖业, 2014(4):63-66.
[8] 韦金菊, 宋修鹏, 黄伟华, 等. 广西主要蔗区甘蔗宿根矮化病调查. 南方农业学报, 2017,48(7):1216-1219.
[9] 宋尚成, 李敏, 刘润进. 种植模式与土壤管理制度对作物连作障碍的影响. 中国农学通报, 2009,25(21):231-235.
[10] 郭肖, 孔德章, 黄本婷, 等. 农作物连作障碍产生机理与调控技术研究. 作物研究, 2016,30(2):215-220.
[11] 赵其国, 沈仁芳, 滕应, 等. 中国重金属污染区耕地轮作休耕制度试点进展、问题及对策建议. 生态环境学报, 2017,26(12):2003-2007.
[12] 郭耀东, 程曼, 赵秀峰, 等. 轮作绿肥对盐碱地土壤性质、后作青贮玉米产量及品质的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2018,26(6):856-864.
[13] 刘洪庆, 付丹丹, 武海杰, 等. 不同轮作模式对后茬作物小麦产量及生理指标的影响. 草业学报, 2018,27(8):59-66.
[14] 房焕, 李奕, 周虎, 等. 稻麦轮作区秸秆还田对水稻土结构的影响. 农业机械学报, 2018,49(4):297-301.
[15] 卢胜, 张振华. 长期稻油轮作改良土壤结构提高水稻产量. 土壤通报, 2018,49(2):409-414.
[16] 潘艳华, 王攀磊, 郭玉蓉, 等. 水旱轮作模式下作物配置和肥水优化对作物产量及土壤养分的影响. 西南农业学报, 2018,31(2):276-283.
[17] Hilton S, Bennett A J, Keane G, et al. Impact of shortened crop rotation of oilseed rape on soil and rhizosphere microbial diversity in relation to yield decline. PLoS ONE, 2013,8(4):e59859.
pmid: 23573215
[18] Yendi N N, Selene G, Nina M C, et al. Relative impacts of tillage,residue management and crop-rotation on soil bacterial communities in a semi-arid agroecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2013,65:86-95.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.05.009
[19] 李晓婷, 李立军, 李杨, 等. 轮作方式对土壤微生物量及酶活性的影响. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(9):68-73.
[20] 郭丰源, 王博文, 李文鹏, 等. 小麦-玉米轮作体系中土壤细菌菌群结构及多样性分析. 麦类作物学报, 2018,38(5):623-630.
[21] Hao W Y, Ren L X, Ran W, et al. Allelopathic effects of root exudates from watermelon and rice plants on Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum. Plant and Soil, 2010,336:485-497.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0505-0
[22] 李春杰, 赵丹, 司兆胜, 等. 不同轮作系统中作物根渗出物对大豆种子萌发的化感作用. 大豆科学, 2013,32(2):206-210.
[23] Barilli E, Jeuffroy M-H, Gall J, et al. Weed response and crop growth in winter wheat-lucerne intercropping:a comparison of conventional and reduced soil-tillage conditions in northern France. Crop and Pasture Science, 2017,68(10/11):1070-1079.
doi: 10.1071/CP16459
[24] Campiglia E, Radicetti E, Mancinelli R. Floristic composition and species diversity of weed community after 10 years of different cropping systems and soil tillage in a Mediterranean environment. Weed Research, 2018,58(4):273-283.
doi: 10.1111/wre.2018.58.issue-4
[25] 高菊生, 徐明岗, 曹卫东, 等. 长期稻-稻-紫云英轮作28年对水稻产量及田间杂草多样性影响. 中国农学通报, 2010,26(17):155-159.
[26] 程传鹏, 潘俊峰, 万开元, 等. 轮作对农田杂草的影响研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2013,29(30):1-9.
[27] 牛小霞, 牛俊义. 不同轮作制度对定西地区农田杂草群落的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017,35(4):223-229.
[28] 钏有聪, 张立猛, 焦永鸽, 等. 大蒜与烤烟轮作对烟草黑胫病的防治效果及作用机理初探. 中国烟草学报, 2016,22(5):55-62.
doi: 10.16472/j.chinatobacco.2016.200
[29] 林中麟, 林天然, 石三三, 等. 轮作抗性品种对烟草病虫害的影响. 上海农业科技, 2017(1):102-103.
[30] 郑超, 谭中文, 刘月廉. 菠萝-甘蔗轮作制度对甘蔗生长和土壤微生物区系的影响. 热带作物学报, 2004,25(3):29-32.
[31] 梁延玺. 花生甘蔗轮作的体会. 广西农业科学, 1982(12):36-37.
[32] 刘隆旺, 肖向阳, 刘晓芬, 等. 甘蔗轮作方式对甘蔗粉蚧发生的影响. 生物灾害科学, 1999,22(6):17-18.
[33] 吴延勇, 梁永检, 张小秋, 等. 2017-2019年广西蔗区甘蔗主要病虫发生情况调查及防治建议. 农业研究与应用, 2019(Z1):34-37.
[34] 王长义, 郝振萍, 陈丹艳, 等. 设施土壤连作障碍产生原因及防治方法综述. 江苏农业科学, 2020,48(8):1-6.
[35] 林威鹏, 曾莉莎, 吕顺, 等. 香蕉-甘蔗轮作模式防控香蕉枯萎病的持续效果与土壤微生态机理(Ⅱ). 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019,27(3):348-357.
[36] 龙盛风, 李文教, 韦绍龙, 等. 不同种植模式下甘蔗梢腐病和香蕉枯萎病病害调查及其病原真菌分离鉴定. 南方农业学报, 2019,50(2):84-90.
[37] 刘文清, 崔广娟, 王芳, 等. 香蕉-甘蔗轮作对土壤养分含量及酶活性的影响. 广东农业科学, 2019,46(8):86-96.
[38] 习金根, 吴浩, 王一承, 等. 菠萝甘蔗轮作生产、生态效益分析研究. 热带农业科学, 2010,30(4):12-14.
[39] 曾艳, 黄金生, 周柳强, 等. 广西桂南蔗区土壤养分状况调查分析. 南方农业学报, 2014,45(12):2198-2202.
[40] 谢如林, 谭宏伟, 周柳强, 等. 广西兴宾蔗区土壤养分状况分析. 中国糖料, 2004(1):22-25.
[41] 林文雄, 陈婷, 周明明. 农业生态学的新视野. 中国生态农业学报, 2012,20(3):253-264.
[42] 谭宏伟, 周柳强, 谭俊杰, 等. 甘蔗节水灌溉及高效施肥关键技术参数研究. 南方农业学报, 2016,47(5):638-643.
[43] 王小明, 覃逸明, 廖政达, 等. 糖料蔗生产中土壤劣变原因、机制与治理对策综述. 江苏农业科学, 2018,46(21):6-11.
[44] 郑超, 廖宗文, 谭中文, 等. 菠萝-甘蔗轮作的土壤生态效应. 生态科学, 2003,21(3):248-249.
[45] 曾莉莎, 林威鹏, 吕顺, 等. 香蕉-甘蔗轮作模式防控香蕉枯萎病的持续效果与土壤微生态机理(Ⅰ). 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019,27(2):257-266.
[46] 陈明智, 吴蔚东, 李雯, 等. 多年连栽香蕉园土壤养分与酶活性变化. 生态环境, 2008,17(3):1221-1226.
[47] 董艳, 鲁耀, 董坤, 等. 轮作模式对设施土壤微生物区系和酶活性的影响. 土壤通报, 2010,41(1):53-55.
[48] 刘敏, 严铸云, 王瑞婷, 等. 四川中江丹参栽培地轮作期间土壤酶活性变化研究. 辽宁中医杂志, 2012(8):1593-1595.
[49] 杨威, 闫海霞, 刘廷武, 等. 黄瓜和草菇轮作对后茬黄瓜根围细菌多样性及土壤酶活性的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2018,46(5):124-128.
[50] 赵倩, 任广伟, 王杰, 等. 施用韩国假单胞菌(Pseudomonas koreensis)CLP-7对连作烟田土壤质量及微生物群落功能多样性的影响. 生态学报, 2020,40(15):1-10.
[51] 刘松涛, 田春丽, 曹雯梅. 不同土壤质地棉花根际微生物及酶活性与土壤理化性质相关性研究. 安徽农业科学, 2020,48(5):165-167,181.
[52] Ibekwe A M, Kennedy A C, Frohne P S, et al. Microbial diversity along a transect of agronomic zone. FEMS Microbiol Ecology, 2002,39(3):183-191.
doi: 10.1111/fem.2002.39.issue-3
[1] Huang Binglin,Wang Mengxue,Jin Xijun,Hu Guohua,Zhang Yuxian. Effects of Different Tillage Treatments on Soil Microorganisms, Enzyme Activities and Nutrients [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(6): 104-113.
[2] Li Chunxi,Li Sisi,Shao Yun,Ma Shouchen,Liu Qing,Weng Zhengpeng,Li Xiaobo. Effects of Organic Materials Returning on Enzyme Activities and Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Content in Wheat Field under Nitrogen-Reducing Conditions [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 129-134.
[3] Jingang Liang,Zhengguang Zhang. Advance on Effects of Genetically ModifiedCrops on Soil Ecosystems [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 1-6.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Hongyan Li,Yonghong Wang,Rulang Zhao,Wenjie Zhang,Bo Ming,Ruizhi Xie,Keru Wang,Lulu Li,Shang Gao,Shaokun Li. The Construction and Application of Maize Grain Dehydration Model in Yellow River Irrigation and Pumping Irrigation District in Ningxia[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 149 -153 .
[2] Huiqin Wen,Tianling Cheng,Ziyou Pei,Xue Li,Lisheng Zhang,Mei Zhu. Analysis of Comprehensive Characteristics of Wheat Varieties Registered in Shanxi Province in Recent Years[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 32 -36 .
[3] Haiyan Liang, Hai Li, Fengxian Lin, Xiangyu Zhang, Zhi Zhang, Xiaoqiang Song. Field Identification of Different Broom Corn Millet Varieties Lodging Resistance and Evaluation Index Selection and Analysis[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 37 -41 .
[4] Zhongguo He,Tongguo Zhu,Yufa Li,Baizhong Wang,Hailong Niu,Hongxin Liu,Weitang Li,Shujing Mu. Current Situation and Development Direction of Peanut Breeding in Jilin[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 8 -12 .
[5] Yan Zhang,Cui Yin,Yun’e Cao. Effects of Earthworm Fermentation Broth on Fruit and Vegetables Quality[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 102 -106 .
[6] Shaohui Huang,Yunma Yang,Ketong Liu,Junfang Yang,Suli Xing,Yanming Sun,Liangliang Jia. Effects of Different Fertilization Method on Wheat Yield and Fertilizer Contribution Rate in Hebei Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 113 -117 .
[7] Zhimin Du,Yuchen Yang,Yuanye Xia,Yanlong Gong,Zhiqiang Yan,Hai Xu. Effects of Harvest Time on Quality Traits of Hybrid Japonica Rice and Inbred Japonica Rice in Northern China[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 147 -151 .
[8] Zhanning Gao,Hui Feng,Zhenggang Xue,Yongqian Yang,Shujie Wang,Zhengmao Pan. Analysis of Main Agronomic Traits of 28 Barley Varieties (Lines)[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 77 -82 .
[9] Kai Zhu,Fei Zhang,Fulai Ke,Yanqiu Wang,Jianqiu Zou. Effects of Planting Density on Yield and Physiological Characteristics of Sorghum Hybrids Suitable for Mechenization[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 83 -87 .
[10] Yu Fan,Hongli Wang,Feng He,Dili Lai,Jiajun Wang,Yue Song,Dabing Xiang. Nutritional Quality in Seeds of Tartary Buckwheat Affected by After-Ripening[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 96 -101 .