Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (3): 202-209.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.03.028

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Intercropping of Sugarcane and Platostoma palustre on Crop Yield, Quality and Economic Benefit

Lan Xiu1(), Li Hengrui1, He Hongliang1(), Ma Xianhua1, Huang Xiaojuan1, Li Tianyuan1, Wei Haiqiu1, Jiang Qingmei1, Ruan Lixia1, Yang Haixia1, Liu Bingji2, Tang Danfeng3   

  1. 1Guangxi South Subtropical Agricultural Sciences Research Institute, Longzhou 532415, Guangxi, China
    2Guangxi Yufeng Health Food Co., Ltd., Nanning 530000, Guangxi, China
    3Guangxi Botanical of Medicinal Plants, Nanning 530000, Guangxi, China
  • Received:2024-04-08 Revised:2024-05-25 Online:2025-06-15 Published:2025-06-03

RichHTML

0

PDF (PC)

19

Abstract:

In order to investigate the effects of different sugarcane/Platostoma palustre intercropping patterns on crop agronomic traits, quality and economic benefits, the sugarcane variety “Guinanzhe 08212” and the Platostoma palustre variety “Lingshandayecao” were used as experimental materials under field cultivation conditions. The two control treatments of single cropping sugarcane (T1) and single cropping P.palustre (T2) were set, and three intercropping patterns including sugarcane with an equal row-spacing of 2.0 m intercropped with P.palustre (T3), sugarcane with an equal row-spacing of 2.4 m intercropped with P.palustre (T4), and sugarcane with narrow and wide rows intercropped with P.palustre (1.2 m+2.4 m) (T5). The results showed that, compared with single cropping treatment, the single stem weight of sugarcane and the leaf length and branch length of P. palustre were increased by intercropping. In addition to cane malleability and sugarcane sugar content, other sugarcane quality indexes of intercropping were significantly different from those of single cropping. Different intercropping patterns decreased the yield of sugarcane and P.palustre, but the total economic output value increased compared with single cropping treatment. The land equivalent ratio of different treatments was T3 (1.60) > T4 (1.50) > T5 (1.28), indicating that the intercropping of sugarcane and P. palustre was superior. The net income of T3 treatment was higher than that of other treatments, and the output value was 46 124.04 yuan/ha, and the output-input ratio was 1.94, which was higher than those of other intercropping treatments. In conclusion, the sugarcane equal row-spacing 2.0 m intercropped with P.palustre is the best pattern for sugarcane intercropping. It can be widely applied in the production of sugarcane intercropping.

Key words: Sugarcane, Platostoma palustre, Intercropping pattern, Yield, Quality, Economic benefit

Table 1

Effects of different intercropping patterns on main agronomic characteristics of sugarcane"

处理Treatment 株高Plant height (cm) 茎径Stem diameter (mm) 有效茎数Effective stalk number (/hm2) 单茎重Weight per stem (kg)
T1 335.67±12.03a 26.36±2.63a 72 705±700a 1.58±0.20c
T3 330.33±4.69a 26.27±2.62a 65 205±1791b 1.74±0.23a
T4 341.00±16.03a 27.24±2.72a 58 755±1959c 1.74±0.12a
T5 332.00±4.17a 27.01±2.70a 65 970±1500b 1.67±0.25b

Table 2

Effects of different intercropping patterns on the main agronomic traits of P.palustre"

处理
Treatment		 叶长
Leaf length (cm)		 叶宽
Leaf width (cm)		 叶厚
Leaf thickness (mm)		 分枝数
Branch number		 分枝长
Branch length (cm)		 基径
Base diameter (mm)
T2 5.37±0.25c 3.37±0.32a 0.21±0.05a 37.00±2.65a 74.17±5.2d 4.24±0.35b
T3 6.23±0.25ab 3.17±0.15a 0.18±0.02a 21.33±3.51c 82.67±2.08c 5.18±0.88a
T4 6.53±0.15a 3.57±0.06a 0.19±0.01a 34.33±2.08a 102.50±13.44a 5.07±0.41a
T5 6.00±0.10b 3.20±0.10a 0.18±0.01a 28.33±1.53b 89.10±5.89b 3.52±0.65c

Table 3

Effects of different intercropping patterns on sugarcane quality %"

处理
Treatment		 甘蔗纤维分
Sugarcane fiber		 甘蔗锤度
Sugarcane weight		 甘蔗糖度
Sugarcane content		 甘蔗蔗糖分
Sugarcane sucrose content		 甘蔗重力纯度
Gravity purity of sugarcane		 蔗渣纤维分
Bagasse fiber content
T1 9.41±0.38c 19.79±0.12a 16.23±0.34a 16.01±0.24d 80.97±2.21d 25.62±2.24c
T3 9.20±0.25c 19.90±0.24a 17.37±0.18a 16.86±0.31a 84.55±3.78a 29.93±2.10a
T4 10.10±0.26b 20.25±0.15a 17.22±0.23a 16.70±0.23ab 83.05±3.23ab 29.08±1.71b
T5 10.84±0.15a 19.94±0.40a 17.00±0.42a 16.45±0.13c 82.22±4.12c 29.74±2.35a

Table 4

Effects of different intercropping patterns on P.palustre quality mg/g"

处理
Treatment		 总糖
Total
sugar		 多糖
Polysaccharide		 总酚
Total
phenols		 总黄酮
Total
flavone
T2 99.94±4.38c 89.30±3.35c 25.39±1.38b 54.90±3.25b
T3 105.38±2.32b 109.04±5.28b 23.34±1.12c 62.88±2.32ab
T4 136.73±3.34a 128.47±2.43a 28.08±1.23a 65.28±1.38a
T5 105.67±3.25b 90.28±4.32c 23.33±2.12c 58.80±3.21c

Fig.1

Effects of different intercropping patterns on SPAD of sugarcane and P.palustre Different lowercase letters in the same crop indicate significant difference (P < 0.05)."

Fig.2

Effects of different intercropping patterns on photosynthetic parameters of sugarcane leaves"

Fig.3

Effects of different intercropping patterns on photosynthetic parameters of P.palustre leaves"

Table 5

Effects of different intercropping patterns on yield of sugarcane and P.palustre"

处理
Treatment		 间作总面积产量Yield of total intercropping area (kg/hm2) 总产量
Total output
(kg/hm2)		 产量Yield (kg/hm2) 土地
当量比
LER
甘蔗Sugarcane 凉粉草P.palustre 甘蔗Sugarcane 凉粉草P.palustre
T1 115 083.33±5119.58a － 115 083.33±5119.58c 115 083.33±5119.58d － 1.00
T2 － 5680.02±1609.20a 5680.02±1609.20d － 5680.02±1609.20b 1.00
T3 113 308.33±4876.37b 3513.53±368.72b 116 821.86±1125.12a 226 616.66±9752.74a 7027.06±737.44a 1.60
T4 101 812.50±1159.39c 3468.77±611.30b 105 281.27±2002.23b 203 625.00±2318.78b 6937.54±1222.60a 1.50
T5 109 583.33±2638.89c 1871.09±170.70c 111 454.42±1504.36c 146 111.11±1759.26c 6936.80±227.60a 1.28

Table 6

Analysis for economic benefits in different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 投入（元/hm2）Input (yuan/hm2) 总投入（元/hm2）
Total input
(yuan/hm2)		 产出（元/hm2）
Output
(yuan/hm2)		 净收益（元/hm2）
Net income
(yuan/hm2)		 产投比
Output-input
ratio
种苗
Germchit		 人工
Labor		 物资
Materials
T1 6000.00 27 339.58 5625.00 32 964.58 57 541.67 24 577.09 1.75
T2 19 200.00 10 300.00 10 036.00 20 336.00 62 480.22 42 144.22 3.07
T3 15 900.00 38 601.84 10 577.11 49 178.95 95 303.00 46 124.04 1.94
T4 17 100.00 39 414.20 11 488.50 50 902.70 89 062.72 38 160.02 1.75
T5 13 500.00 38 748.88 13 266.00 52 014.88 75 373.66 23 358.78 1.45
[1] 杨建波, 彭东海, 覃刘东, 等. 低氮条件下甘蔗-大豆间作对甘蔗产量、品质及经济效益的影响. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(5):1426-1432.
[2] Govinden N, Anason J T. The relative importance of competition for water and for light in intercropping of sugar-cane with maize. Agricultural Water Management, 1990,17:233.
[3] Kamruzzaman M, Hasanuzzama M. Factors affecting profitability of sugarcane production as monoculture and asintercrop in selected areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 2007,32:433-444.
[4] 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. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(3):713-719.
[5] 杨文亭, 李志贤, 舒磊, 等. 甘蔗//大豆间作和减量施氮对甘蔗产量、植株及土壤氮素的影响. 生态学报, 2011, 31(20):6108-6115.
[6] Suman A, Lal M, Singh A K, et al. Microbial biomass turnover in Indian subtropical soils under different sugar-cane intercropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 2006,98:698-704.
[7] Bokhtiar S M, Hossain M S, Mahmud K, et al. Site specific nutrient management for sugarcane potato and sugar-cane onion intercropping systems. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 2003,2:1205-1208.
[8] 沈君辉, 聂勤, 黄得润, 等. 作物混植和间作控制病虫害研究的新进展. 植物保护学报, 2007, 34(2):209-216.
[9] 罗玉. 凉粉草多糖对不同直链含量玉米淀粉凝胶特性的影响及凉粉草布丁产品的研发. 南昌:南昌大学, 2021.
[10] 李志贤, 杨文亭, 王建武. 甘蔗-甜玉米间作对甘蔗产量、品质及经济效益的影响. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(1):98-104.
[11] 谢金兰, 王维赞, 李长宁, 等. 不同间种绿豆方式对甘蔗产量和品质的影响研究. 西南农业学报, 2014, 27(2):555-558.
[12] 何洪良, 韦海球, 江清梅, 等. 甘蔗宽窄行间作花生对甘蔗产量、品质及经济效益的影响. 中国热带农业, 2021(6):55-58.
[13] 肖健, 韦星璇, 杨尚东, 等. 间作西瓜对甘蔗产量效益和根际土壤理化性质及微生态的影响. 作物学报, 2023, 49(2):526-538.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.24050
[14] 杨建波, 彭东海, 覃刘东, 等. 低氮条件下甘蔗―大豆间作对甘蔗产量、品质及经济效益的影响. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(5):1426-1432.
[15] 孟庆宝, 方锋学, 龙明华, 等. 甘蔗间种菜用大豆对甘蔗产量、品质及间种后综合经济效益的影响. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(24):169-173.
[16] 吴海宁, 黄志鹏, 唐秀梅, 等. 甘蔗花生间作下不同氮磷钾配施对花生养分吸收及产量效益的影响. 中国油料作物学报, 2023, 45(1):155-163.
doi: 10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2021318
[17] 黎萍, 黄小娟, 梁振华, 等. 木薯与凉粉草套种高产高效栽培技术研究. 农业研究与应用, 2021, 34(1):15-19.
[18] 谭秋锦, 王文林, 陈海生, 等. 石漠化澳洲坚果园土壤养分及pH值空间异质性分析. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(2):80-83.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010069
[19] 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. 作物学报, 2014, 40(3):556-562.
[20] 赖志明, 宋晓娟, 魏星任, 等. 基于主成分分析的不同产地凉粉草质量评价. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(10):172-176.
[21] 黄渝岚, 刘文君, 李艳英, 等. 木薯田间作不同密度南瓜对作物产量、经济效益及土地生产力的影响. 作物杂志, 2024(5):125-130.
[22] 丘立杭, 范业麽, 周慧文, 等. 合理密植下强分蘖甘蔗品种性状及产量分析. 热带作物学报, 2019, 40(6):1075-1082.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.06.006
[23] 夏微. 基于SLAF-seq技术的凉粉草居群遗传多样性分析. 广州:华南农业大学, 2018.
[24] 张旭升. 甘蔗间种菜用大豆对其产量品质及土壤理化性状的影响. 南宁:广西大学, 2014.
[25] 林丽华. 凉粉草多糖提取优化、理化性质及流变胶凝特性研究. 南昌:南昌大学, 2018.
[26] 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.
[27] 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. 作物学报, 2006, 32(6):917-923.
[28] 武岩岩, 汪江涛, 李雪, 等. 花生与玉米和芝麻间作的产量及经济效益分析. 中国生态农业学报, 2021, 29(8):1285-1295.
[29] 黄进勇, 李新平, 孙敦立. 平原冬小麦―春玉米―夏玉米复合种植模式生理生态效应研究. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(1):51-56.
[30] 钱必长, 赵晨, 赵继浩, 等. 不同花生棉花间作模式对花生生育后期生理特性及产量的影响. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(9):2422-2430.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202209.014
[31] 程玉柱, 李龙, 周琴, 等. 玉米/大豆不同配置下的玉米生长和产量形成研究. 南京农业大学学报, 2016, 39(1):34-39.
[1] He Yunxia, Ma Jianhui, Zhang Daijing, Liu Donghua, Chao Xiaoyan, Chen Huiping, Li Chunxi. Study on the Effect of Different Nitrogen Fertilizer Synergists on Reducing Gaseous Nitrogen Loss and Increasing Yield in Wheat Field of Northern Henan [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 108-115.
[2] Wang Jiatong, Ma Yingchen, Feng Yanfei, Lu Jiahui, Guo Zhenqing, Li Xueli, Li Yun, Han Yucui, Lin Xiaohu. Effects of Reduction of Nitrogen Topdressing Application on Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilizer Utilization and Quality of Spring Wheat in Eastern Hebei Province [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 141-148.
[3] Wang Yi, Ren Yongfu, Zhang Zhengpeng, Ding Defang, Zhang Jing, Liu Yihong, Sun Duoxin, Chen Guangrong. The Effects of Different Covering Materials on Soil Environment and Maize Yield in Hexi Irrigation Area [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 149-155.
[4] Cao Zhengnan, Zhao Zhendong, Hu Bo, Yu Han, Ning Xiaohai, Zhao Zeqiang, Cao Liyong. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Promoting Rot Bacteria Fertilizer on Decomposition Effect of Returning Rice Straw to Field and Yield in Cold Regions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 172-177.
[5] Hou Nan, Wu Fengjie, Qi Xiangkun, Wang Yufeng, Yang Kejun, Fu Jian. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Levels on Carbon Metabolism of Waxy Maize during Filling Period in Black Soil Area [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 178-184.
[6] Zhu Jindi, Zhu Xuegang, Du Wenqing, Qiu Tuoyu, Zhao Xinbin. Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction Combined with Organic Fertilizer Application on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Quality and Yield of Tomatoes Cultivated in Facilities [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 185-189.
[7] Li Hu, Huang Qiuyao, Wu Zishuai, Liu Guanglin, Chen Chuanhua, Luo Qunchang, Zhu Qinan. Effects of Planting Density and Nitrogen Application Rate on Yield and Rice Quality of High-Quality Conventional Rice Guiyu 12 [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 195-201.
[8] Wei Mengyang, Luo Zhenbao, He Shuai, Ma Qian, Ma Guankai, Xi Feihu, Luo Dongsheng, Jing Yanqiu, Yu Qiwei, Wang Maoxian. Effects of Interaction between Photosynthetic Bacteria and the Number of Retained Leaves on Physiological Metabolism, Chemical Quality, Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 210-217.
[9] Yang Zepeng, Wan Kejun, Zheng Shenghua, Ao Yuqin, Ma Mingkun, Wan Xue, Li Shanshan, Song Xin, Wang Changtao, Chen Shanghong, Liu Dinghui, Chen Honglin. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Seeding Amount Configuration on Yield Formation of Rapeseed by Aerial Seeding [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 225-232.
[10] Huang Yuxin, Zhang Gemin, Zhou Shan, Duan Weixing, Yang Cuifang, Gao Yijing, Zhang Baoqing. Analysis of the Improvement Efficiency of F1 Hybrids between Intergeneric Hybrid (Tripidium arundinaceum×Saccharum spontaneum) and Sugarcane [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 23-29.
[11] Liang Hui, Zhang Jianxin, Xue Lihua, Jia Keke. Effects of Drip Irrigation Amount on Root Growth and Yield of Xinnongdou 2 under the Condition of the Postpone of Water and Nitrogen [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 233-240.
[12] Wang Heya, Luo Jingjing, Meng Ling, Ai Haifeng, Wang Bin, Li Huaisheng, Xu Jingpeng, Xu Xiangyang. Yield Sensitivity Analysis of Edible Sunflower Varieties in Taʼe Basin [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 30-37.
[13] Mao Shunxin, Xiao Wuwei, Zhang Zuolin, Huang Jiada, Wang Fei, Huang Jianliang, Peng Shaobing, Cui Kehui. Effects of Different Irrigation Patterns and Fertilizer Managements on the Growth of Axillary Buds and Yield Formation of Ratoon Season in Ratoon Rice [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 92-101.
[14] Ren Yongfu, Li Jiayi, Chen Guopeng, Pu Tian, Chen Hong, Wang Xiaochun. Effects of Different Planting Patterns on the Yield and Efficiency of Maize in Strip Intercropping System [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 101-108.
[15] Tian Wenqiang, Wang Hongyi, Nie Lingfan, Sun Ganggang, Zhang Jun, Zhang Qiangbin, Yu Shan, Li Jiahao, Zhang Jinshan, Shi Shubing. The Effects of Sowing Date and Sowing Rate on the Growth, Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield of Extremely Late-Sown Wheat Population [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 115-122.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!