Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 239-246.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.05.031

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Relay Intercropping Corn after Tobacco on Crop Production and Soil Nutrients

Liu Di1,2(), Song Laigui2, Tian Linqing1, Li Zhigang1, Ma Junmei2, Li Zuosen2, Nian Fuzhao2, Jiao Jian1(), Deng Xiaopeng3   

  1. 1 Yiliang Branch of Kunming Company, Yunnan Tobacco Company, Kunming 652100, Yunnan, China
    2 College of Tobacco Science, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650000, Yunnan, China
    3 Yunnan Academy of Tobacco Agricultural Sciences, Kunming 650032, Yunnan, China
  • Received:2024-06-03 Revised:2024-09-26 Online:2025-10-15 Published:2025-10-21

RichHTML

4

PDF (PC)

103

Abstract:

In order to screen out fresh-eating corn varieties suitable for intercropping after flue-cured tobacco, five fresh-eating corn varieties, including Dagujingnuo VIII, Shibainuo 1, Yanuo 69, Jinnuo 1805, and Caitiannuo 6, were used as experimental materials, and their growth period, agronomic traits, yield, and quality were determined and analyzed, it was preliminarily determined that Shibainuo 1 had higher yield, better quality, and shorter growth period, and was suitable for intercropping of flue-cured tobacco. Intercropping of flue-cured tobacco Honghuadajinyuan after the end of second shed tobacco leaves with Shibainuo 1, the effects of interplanting fresh corn on tobacco yield and quality, soil nutrients and related enzyme activities were analyzed. The results showed that compared with flue-cured tobacco monoculture, intercropping fresh-eating corn at the late stage of flue-cured tobacco optimized the coordination of the upper leaves of flue-cured tobacco and improved the quality of tobacco leaves, improved the activity of acid phosphatase in rhizosphere soil of tobacco, increased the contents of soil organic matter and alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen, and decreased the content of chloride ions.

Key words: Relay intercropping corn after tobacco, Soil enzyme activity, Variety selection, Soil nutrient

Table 1

Agronomic traits of different fresh-eating corn varieties at maturity"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height (cm)		 茎围
Stem circumference (cm)		 叶片数
Leaf number		 叶长
Leaf length (cm)		 叶宽
Leaf width (cm)
大谷京糯八号DGJN 163.00±4.62ab 10.99±0.23a 13.20±0.25a 59.95±2.46a 10.13±0.25a
石白糯1号SBN 172.27±10.70a 9.33±0.33c 12.73±0.41a 60.54±4.33a 8.81±0.95a
雅糯69 YN 144.13±5.90ab 10.59±0.17ab 11.67±0.30b 58.82±1.55a 10.35±0.40a
金糯1805 JN 150.00±10.07ab 10.95±0.30a 11.07±0.16b 58.10±3.73a 9.97±0.36a
彩甜糯6号CTN 134.40±14.63b 9.84±0.39bc 11.73±0.45b 59.47±1.38a 9.96±0.58a

Table 2

Yield and growth period of different fresh corn varieties"

品种
Variety		 生育期
Growth period (d)		 平均单株穗数
Average number of ears per plant		 平均穗重
Average ear weight (kg)		 产量
Yield (kg/hm2)
大谷京糯八号DGJN 86 1 0.52±0.02a 16 255.22±111.29b
石白糯1号SBN 90 2 0.36±0.02b 22 507.25±259.05a
雅糯69 YN 92 1 0.49±0.04ab 15 317.45±352.54c
金糯1805 JN 95 1 0.20±0.05c 6252.00±304.61d
彩甜糯6号CTN 98 1 0.47±0.04ab 14 692.20±381.94c

Fig.1

Quality analysis of different fresh-eating corn varieties The different lowercase letters indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 level, the same below."

Table 3

Sensory test of different fresh-eating corn varieties"

品种
Variety		 外观品质
（10）
Appearance quality		 气味
（10）
Scents		 色泽
（10）
Color		 甜糯性
（15）
Sweetness		 果皮厚度
（15）
Pericarp thickness		 柔嫩性
（20）
Tenderness		 风味
（20）
Flavour		 总分
（100）
Total score
大谷京糯八号DGJN 8.00±0.00ab 8.67±0.58a 8.17±0.76a 9.67±1.53b 13.00±0.00a 17.00±0.00a 18.33±0.58a 82.83±1.76a
石白糯1号SBN 9.00±0.00a 8.17±0.29ab 8.50±0.87a 13.67±0.58a 12.33±1.53a 18.00±0.00a 17.67±0.58ab 87.33±1.53a
雅糯69 YN 7.33±0.58b 7.67±0.29b 7.17±0.76ab 11.33±1.15b 11.00±1.00ab 15.67±0.58ab 15.6±1.54bc 75.83±2.25b
金糯1805 JN 6.17±1.04c 7.00±0.00c 8.33±1.15a 11.00±1.73b 9.67±1.53b 14.00±1.00bc 13.67±0.58c 69.83±3.88c
彩甜糯6号CTN 5.67±0.58c 6.00±0.00d 6.00±1.00b 9.00±1.00b 10.00±1.00b 12.67±2.52c 13.67±2.08c 63.00±3.00d

Fig.2

Effects of intercropping flue-cured tobacco and corn on the physicochemical properties of rhizosphere soil *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01, ***: P < 0.001, the same below."

Fig.3

Effects of intercropping between flue-cured tobacco and corn on enzyme activities in rhizosphere soil"

Fig.4

Correlation between physicochemical properties and enzyme activities of rhizosphere soil in intercropping flue-cured tobacco and corn “*”and“**”indicate significant correlation at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively."

Table 4

The effects of intercropping tobacco with maize on the chemical composition of upper leaves of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 总糖
Total sugar
(%)		 还原糖
Reducing
sugar (%)		 总氮
Total
nitrogen (%)		 烟碱
Nicotine
(%)		 氧化钾
Potassium
chloride (%)		 氯
Chlorine
(%)		 钾氯比
Potassium-
chloride ratio		 氮碱比
Nitrogen-
alkali ratio
T1 18.82±0.16 15.62±0.15* 2.78±0.02 4.41±0.06 2.46±0.02* 0.34±0.01* 7.23±0.13 0.63±0.006
T2 18.55±0.19 15.01±0.10 2.82±0.03 4.25±0.03 2.33±0.03 0.30±0.01 7.70±0.21* 0.66±0.003*

Table 5

Yield and production value of upper leaves of flue-cured tobacco in single cropping and intercropping"

处理
Treatment		 产量
Yield (kg/hm2)		 产值（元/hm2）
Production value (yuan/hm2)
T1 612.00±13.44 11 830.80±288.14
T2 553.17±10.65 10 277.80±396.11
T3 13 422.27±527.59 67 111.33±2637.96
[1] 云南统计局.云南统计年鉴(2022). 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2022.
[2] 郑锦荣, 韩福光, 李智军. 国内外甜玉米产业现状与发展趋势. 广东农业科学, 2009(10):35-38.
[3] Ferrier P. The effects of phytosanitary regulations on U.S. imports of fresh fruits and vegetables// Economic Research Report, United States Department of Agriculture, 2014, 168:39.
[4] 徐丽, 赵久然, 卢柏山, 等. 我国鲜食玉米种业现状及发展趋势. 中国种业, 2020(10):14-18.
[5] 杨明花, 嵇闯, 崔亚坤, 等. 鲜食糯玉米货架期苞叶相关性状的配合力及其遗传效应分析. 玉米科学, 2023, 31(6):10-16.
[6] 翟广谦, 陈永欣, 田福海, 等. 甜、糯玉米鲜食期品质变化及保鲜技术研究. 山西农业科学, 1997, 25(1):24-27.
[7] 李惠生, 董树亭, 高荣岐. 鲜食玉米品质特性研究概述. 玉米科学, 2007, 15(2):144-146.
[8] 唐世凯, 刘丽芳, 李永梅. 烤烟套种甘薯对烟叶质量和经济效益的影响. 西南农业学报, 2009, 22(5):1267-1270.
[9] 崔爱花, 刘帅, 白志刚, 等. 间作对旱地作物生长发育及生理生态影响的研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(18):1-5.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0493
[10] 李庆凯, 刘苹, 赵海军, 等. 玉米根系分泌物对连作花生土壤酚酸类物质化感作用的影响. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22 (3):119-130.
doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0482
[11] 李金秋, 贺国强, 王晶英. 套作绿肥对烤烟生长及土壤酶活性的影响. 河南农业科学, 2020, 49(11):45-53.
[12] 张迪, 李冬, 李俊营, 等. 不同种植模式对烤烟叶片内在质量和致香物质的影响. 湖南农业科学, 2021(1):20-22,34.
[13] 张迪, 李冬, 李俊营, 等. 种植模式对土壤酶活性与烤烟光合特性的影响. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(2):250-252,277.
doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20210203
[14] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草农艺性状调查测量方法:YC/T 142-2010. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2010.
[15] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品淀粉的测定连续流动法:YC/T 216-2013. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2013.
[16] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品蛋白质的测定连续流动法:YC/T 249-2008. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008.
[17] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 茶游离氨基酸含量测定:GB/T 8314-2013. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2013.
[18] 中华人民共和国林业局. 森林植物与森林枯枝落叶层全氮、磷、钾、钠、钙、镁的测定:LY/T 1271-1999. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1999.
[19] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品水溶性糖的测定连续流动法:YC/T 159-2019. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2019.
[20] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品总植物碱的测定连续流动(硫氰酸钾)法:YC/T 468-2013. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2013.
[21] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品氯的测定连续流动法:YC/T 162-2011. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011.
[22] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品总氮的测定连续流动法:YC/T 161-2002. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002.
[23] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品钾的测定连续流动法:YC/T 173-2003. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003.
[24] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[25] 唐远驹. 烟叶特色风格定位. 中国烟草科学, 2008, 29(3):1-15.
[26] 张志灵, 房权祥, 林祖斌, 等. 福建烟区烤烟主要化学成分特征分析. 农学学报, 2021, 11(7):60-64.
doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2020-0012
[27] 耿金剑, 周广胜, 宋艳玲, 等. 2018-2021年华北北部不同播期对玉米生长发育的影响数据集. 中国科学数据(中英文网络版) 2023, 8(4):186-195.
[28] 卢艳丽, 陆卫平, 刘小兵, 等. 不同基因型糯玉米氮素吸收利用效率的研究 Ⅲ. 氮素分配转移特性的基因型差异. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2007, 13(1):86-92.
[29] 卢柏山, 董会, 赵久然, 等. 不同鲜食玉米品种适采期氨基酸含量分析. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(11):132-142.
[30] 蒋志慧, 王文慧, 张有利, 等. 生物炭用量对鲜食糯玉米产量及品质的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(14):109-115.
[31] 王浩, 刘景圣, 郑明珠, 等. 鲜食糯玉米贮藏过程中淀粉含量及相关酶活性变化的研究. 中国粮油学报, 2017, 32(3):6-10,24.
[32] Utobo E B, Tewari L. Soil enzymes as bioindicators of soil ecosystem status. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 2015, 13(1):147-169.
[33] 张瑞, 焉学倩, 杨忠亮, 等. 作物间作研究进展. 特产研究,(2023-10-17) [2024-06-03]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/22.1154.s.20231012.1624.001.
[34] 景艺卓, 郭笑恒, 王晓丽, 等. 间作生姜对烤烟产质量、土壤细菌数量及理化性质的影响. 山东农业科学, 2022, 54(1):86-94.
[35] 周慕邱, 戴彬, 何轶, 等. 烤烟间作对烟株根际土壤酶活性和细菌群落的影响. 分子植物育种,(2023-08-28) [2024-06-03]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/46.1068.s.20230825.1436.004.
[36] 刘领, 李继伟, 刘杉, 等. 芸薹属绿肥对烤烟根系及土壤酶活性的影响. 河南科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 38(3):74-79.
[37] 张海龙, 武润琴, 李佳佳, 等. 根系分泌物C:N对刺槐林地土壤理化特征和土壤呼吸的影响. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33 (4):949-956.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202204.013
[38] 忙顺兰, 罗晓蔓, 丁贵杰. 马尾松幼苗根系分泌物对土壤酶活性和养分的影响. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2021, 41(12):53-59.
[39] 马俊美, 窦敏, 刘弟, 等. 烤烟与玉米间作种植对根际土壤养分及作物生长的影响. 作物杂志, 2025(1):227-234.
[40] 陈闺, 周杰文, 李海平, 等. 土壤调理剂施用对植烟酸化土壤pH值和烤烟根系特性的影响. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(7):1275-1282.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.07.13
[41] 施守杰. 不同种植模式对烤烟燃烧性和品质的影响. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2016.
[42] 周芳芳, 杨策, 蔡宪杰, 等. 上部烟叶不同留茎时间烤烟的物理特性及化学成分协调性. 中南农业科技, 2024, 45(3):18-22,26.
[1] Yan Dingwei, Yang Jianxin, Guo Jie, Liang Yifan, Luo Fei, Fu Guangming, Li Junzheng, Chang Jianbo, Zhang Yulin, Ji Xiaoming. Effects of Different Water-Retaining Agents on the Bacterial Community Structure of Tobacco-Planting Soil and the Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 197-205.
[2] Zhang Zhihan, Yao Jie, Zhang Zhantian, Bian Fuhua, Zhang Ziran, Chen Ping, Chen Haining, Liu Baoyou. Effects of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid on Cucumber Seedling Growth and Soil Enzyme Activities under Drought Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 245-250.
[3] Ma Junmei, Dou Min, Liu Di, Yang Xiuhua, Yang Yong, Nian Fuzhao, Liu Yating, Li Yongzhong. Effects of Intercropping Flue-Cured Tobacco and Maize on Rhizosphere Soil Nutrients and Crop Growth [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 227-234.
[4] Lü Bo, Ding Liang, Guo Cong, Chen Feng, Zhou Haiping, Wang Xuesong, Dong Xiaolin, Xiang Fayun. Effects of Compound Microbial Fertilizer on Soil Nutrients and Rhizosphere Bacterial Community in Cotton Field [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(4): 209-215.
[5] Pan Yue, Li Siyu, Gao Jie, Shen Xinya, Liu Lijun. Research Progress on Effects of Straw and Its Returning Methods on Soil Properties in Paddy Fields under Different Rotation Patterns [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(2): 1-8.
[6] Li Yuxin, Lu Min, Zhao Jiuran, Wang Ronghuan, Xu Tianjun, Lü Tianfang, Cai Wantao, Zhang Yong, Xue Honghe, Liu Yueʼe. The Production Status Investigation and Analysis of Summer Maize in Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan Region [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(4): 174-181.
[7] Liu Hongjie, Ren Dechao, Ni Yongjing, Ge Jun, Zhang Suyu, Lü Guohua, Hu Xin. Effects of Straw Returning and Reducing Nitrogen Application on Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activities and Wheat Yield [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(4): 210-214.
[8] Sun Yihe, Zhang Kai, Lu Qifei, Li Songwei, Zhang Bo, Li Jun, Ye Xiefeng, Yao Pengwei, Li Xueli. Suitability Evaluation on Nutrients of Tobacco-Planted Soils in Three Typical Ecological Regions [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(1): 115-121.
[9] Qin Meng, Cui Shize, He Xiaodong, Zhai Lingxia, Tao Bo, Wang Zhaojun, Zhao Haicheng, Li Hongyu, Zheng Guiping, Liu Lihua. Effects of Straw Puffing Returning on Rice Yield, Quality and Soil Nutrients [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 159-166.
[10] Chang Haigang, Li Guang, Yuan Jianyu, Xie Mingjun, Qi Xiaoping. Effects of Different Fertilization Methods on Soil Nutrients and Yield of Spring Wheat in the Loess Hilly Region of Central Gansu Province [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(5): 160-166.
[11] Zhou Wuxian, Li Mengge, Tan Xuhui, Wang Youyuan, Wang Hua, Jiang Xiaogang, Duan Yuanyuan, Zhang Meide. Effects of Sowing Density on Growth, Nutritional Quality and Soil Enzyme Activity of Pinellia ternata in Different Seasons [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(4): 205-213.
[12] Guo Shuya, Shang Shang, Tang Qining, Zhang Yan, Lu Guangyuan. Effects of Different Rotation Tillage Methods and Biochar on Soil Enzyme Activity, Soil Nutrients and Yield of Wheat and Maize [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(3): 211-217.
[13] Wang Guojiao, Song Peng, Yang Zhenzhong, Zhang Wenzhong. Effects of Straw Returning on Photosynthetic Matter Production Characteristics, Quality of Rice and Soil Nutrients [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 67-72.
[14] Meng Xiangyu, Ran Cheng, Liu Baolong, Zhao Zhexuan, Bai Jingjing, Geng Yanqiu. Effects of Straw Returning to Field and Nitrogen Application on Soil Nutrients and Rice Yield in Black Soil Areas of Northeast China [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 167-172.
[15] Zhou Zhengping, Tian Baogeng, Chen Wanhua, Wang Ziyang, Yuan Wei, Liu Shiping. Effects of Different Tillage Methods and Straw Returning on Soil Nutrients and Wheat Yield and Quality [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 78-83.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!