Journal of Agriculture ›› 2022, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (3): 6-10.doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2020-0182
Previous Articles Next Articles
LI Guoqing(), LI Guoyu, CONG Xinjun(), LI Ni
Received:
2020-08-21
Revised:
2020-11-16
Online:
2022-03-20
Published:
2022-03-22
Contact:
CONG Xinjun
E-mail:wfsglgq2008@163.com;tazaliang@126.com
CLC Number:
LI Guoqing, LI Guoyu, CONG Xinjun, LI Ni. Intermission Seeding Under Millet and Peanut Intercropping: Effects on the Agronomic Traits and Yield of Millet[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 6-10.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://nxxb.caass.org.cn/EN/10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2020-0182
处理 | 株高/cm | 茎粗/mm | 植株干重/g | 穗长/cm |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 96.9±8.06abc | 6.57±0.26a | 11.37±0.47a | 16.6±0.95bc |
T2 | 87.53±9.39bc | 5.77±0.23b | 10.07±1.31ab | 17.3±0.78ab |
T3 | 86.9±5.834c | 5.63±0.41b | 9.53±0.39bc | 18.57±0.37a |
T4 | 99.77±1.73abc | 5.37±0.16bc | 9.4±0.25bc | 17.1±0.57ab |
T5 | 103.77±2.45ab | 5.27±0.25bc | 9.37±0.45bc | 16.6±0.41bc |
T6 | 106.3±2.03a | 4.83±0.38c | 7.97±1.01c | 15.3±0.33c |
FSD | 2.884 | 7.990** | 4.411* | 5.133* |
处理 | 株高/cm | 茎粗/mm | 植株干重/g | 穗长/cm |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 96.9±8.06abc | 6.57±0.26a | 11.37±0.47a | 16.6±0.95bc |
T2 | 87.53±9.39bc | 5.77±0.23b | 10.07±1.31ab | 17.3±0.78ab |
T3 | 86.9±5.834c | 5.63±0.41b | 9.53±0.39bc | 18.57±0.37a |
T4 | 99.77±1.73abc | 5.37±0.16bc | 9.4±0.25bc | 17.1±0.57ab |
T5 | 103.77±2.45ab | 5.27±0.25bc | 9.37±0.45bc | 16.6±0.41bc |
T6 | 106.3±2.03a | 4.83±0.38c | 7.97±1.01c | 15.3±0.33c |
FSD | 2.884 | 7.990** | 4.411* | 5.133* |
处理 | 穗粗/cm | 穗重/g | 穗粒重/g | 成穗率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 2.22±0.04ab | 12.17±1.43ab | 8.23±1.84b | 85.67±1.73a |
T2 | 2.23±0.04ab | 12.6±1.57ab | 9±0.57ab | 83.79±6.25a |
T3 | 2.33±0.06a | 14.63±0.9711a | 10.67±0.38a | 81.25±2.95a |
T4 | 2.17±0.06b | 13.23±0.31ab | 9.7±0.16ab | 71.29±1.73b |
T5 | 2.1±0.08b | 13±0.29ab | 9.47±0.42ab | 65.05±4.02b |
T6 | 2.1±0.08b | 11.7±1.57b | 7.87±1.98b | 62.73±4.82b |
FT | 4.467* | 1.817 | 2.119 | 12.290** |
处理 | 穗粗/cm | 穗重/g | 穗粒重/g | 成穗率/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 2.22±0.04ab | 12.17±1.43ab | 8.23±1.84b | 85.67±1.73a |
T2 | 2.23±0.04ab | 12.6±1.57ab | 9±0.57ab | 83.79±6.25a |
T3 | 2.33±0.06a | 14.63±0.9711a | 10.67±0.38a | 81.25±2.95a |
T4 | 2.17±0.06b | 13.23±0.31ab | 9.7±0.16ab | 71.29±1.73b |
T5 | 2.1±0.08b | 13±0.29ab | 9.47±0.42ab | 65.05±4.02b |
T6 | 2.1±0.08b | 11.7±1.57b | 7.87±1.98b | 62.73±4.82b |
FT | 4.467* | 1.817 | 2.119 | 12.290** |
处理 | 花生 | 谷子 | 总产量 | 间作系统生产力SP | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
花生间作 | 花生单作 | 谷子间作 | 谷子单作 | |||
T1 | 1870.35±34.8d | 4556.7±212.7 | 3593.85±432.0ab | 5683.35±23.55 | 5464.35±405.45a | 2444.85±155.10bc |
T2 | 2105.40±12.15c | 4556.7±212.7 | 3923.25±422.40ab | 5683.35±23.55 | 6028.65±434.55a | 2711.25±182.25ab |
T3 | 2130.45±94.35c | 4556.7±212.7 | 4073.25±148.50a | 5683.35±23.55 | 6203.70±69.30a | 2778.00±29.85a |
T4 | 2511.30±7.95a | 4556.7±212.7 | 3758.55±75.45ab | 5683.35±23.55 | 6269.85±71.40a | 2926.95±27.90a |
T5 | 2479.20±17.55ab | 4556.7±212.7 | 3216.60±290.85b | 5683.35±23.55 | 5695.80±298.35a | 2724.90±125.10ab |
T6 | 2352.09±126.15b | 4556.7±212.7 | 2308.05±418.35c | 5683.35±23.55 | 4660.95±543.15b | 2337.90±272.85c |
处理 | 花生 | 谷子 | 总产量 | 间作系统生产力SP | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
花生间作 | 花生单作 | 谷子间作 | 谷子单作 | |||
T1 | 1870.35±34.8d | 4556.7±212.7 | 3593.85±432.0ab | 5683.35±23.55 | 5464.35±405.45a | 2444.85±155.10bc |
T2 | 2105.40±12.15c | 4556.7±212.7 | 3923.25±422.40ab | 5683.35±23.55 | 6028.65±434.55a | 2711.25±182.25ab |
T3 | 2130.45±94.35c | 4556.7±212.7 | 4073.25±148.50a | 5683.35±23.55 | 6203.70±69.30a | 2778.00±29.85a |
T4 | 2511.30±7.95a | 4556.7±212.7 | 3758.55±75.45ab | 5683.35±23.55 | 6269.85±71.40a | 2926.95±27.90a |
T5 | 2479.20±17.55ab | 4556.7±212.7 | 3216.60±290.85b | 5683.35±23.55 | 5695.80±298.35a | 2724.90±125.10ab |
T6 | 2352.09±126.15b | 4556.7±212.7 | 2308.05±418.35c | 5683.35±23.55 | 4660.95±543.15b | 2337.90±272.85c |
株高 | 茎粗 | 干重 | 穗长 | 穗粗 | 穗重 | 穗粒重 | 成穗率% | 产量 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 | 1 | ||||||||
茎粗 | -0.504 | 1 | |||||||
干重 | -0.472 | 0.982** | 1 | ||||||
穗长 | -0.848* | 0.364 | 0.372 | 1 | |||||
穗粗 | -0.920** | 0.556 | 0.48 | 0.867* | 1 | ||||
穗重 | -0.586 | 0.044 | 0.059 | 0.910* | 0.674 | 1 | |||
穗粒重 | -0.531 | -0.029 | 0.019 | 0.880* | 0.566 | 0.981** | 1 | ||
成穗率% | -0.840* | 0.876* | 0.830* | 0.615 | 0.829* | 0.257 | 0.175 | 1 | |
产量 | -0.843* | 0.606 | 0.641 | 0.911* | 0.803 | 0.697 | 0.697 | 0.774 | 1 |
株高 | 茎粗 | 干重 | 穗长 | 穗粗 | 穗重 | 穗粒重 | 成穗率% | 产量 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 | 1 | ||||||||
茎粗 | -0.504 | 1 | |||||||
干重 | -0.472 | 0.982** | 1 | ||||||
穗长 | -0.848* | 0.364 | 0.372 | 1 | |||||
穗粗 | -0.920** | 0.556 | 0.48 | 0.867* | 1 | ||||
穗重 | -0.586 | 0.044 | 0.059 | 0.910* | 0.674 | 1 | |||
穗粒重 | -0.531 | -0.029 | 0.019 | 0.880* | 0.566 | 0.981** | 1 | ||
成穗率% | -0.840* | 0.876* | 0.830* | 0.615 | 0.829* | 0.257 | 0.175 | 1 | |
产量 | -0.843* | 0.606 | 0.641 | 0.911* | 0.803 | 0.697 | 0.697 | 0.774 | 1 |
[1] |
ZHANG F S, LI L. Using competitive and facilitative inter-actions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency[J]. Plant and soil, 2003, 248:305-312.
doi: 10.1023/A:1022352229863 URL |
[2] | 王钰云, 王宏富, 李智, 等. 间作遮阴对花生生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(2):218-221. |
[3] | 赵建华, 孙建好, 李伟绮. 玉米播期对大豆/玉米间作产量及种间竞争力的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(11):1634-1642. |
[4] | 王飞, 孙增光, 焦念元, 等. 芝麻与花生间作对芝麻功能叶光合荧光特性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(11):3787-3794. |
[5] | 刘柱, 孟维伟, 南镇武, 等. 盐碱地不同种植模式对谷子花生生长发育及产量形成的影响[J]. 花生学报, 2019, 48(2):31-37. |
[6] | 王雪蓉. 施氮水平对玉米/大豆间作干物质累积和养分吸收的影响[D]. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2019. |
[7] | 孙晓楠. 大豆—玉米垄作间作对间作系统生理生态及后茬小麦赤霉病的影响[D]. 合肥:安徽农业大学, 2018. |
[8] | 王俊. 吉林玉米带不同米豆间作模式下的产量效应及其机理研究[D]. 长春:吉林农业大学, 2018. |
[9] | 张亦涛, 任天志, 刘宏斌, 等. 玉米大豆间作降低小麦玉米轮作体系土壤氮残留的效应与机制[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(13):2580-2590. |
[10] | 王自奎. 小麦/玉米间作复合群体光能和水分传输利用试验与模拟研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2015. |
[11] | 吕越. 玉米/大豆种内与种间作物的资源竞争[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2014. |
[12] | 丛新军, 李国瑜, 于淑婷, 等. 播期对济谷16农艺性状、产量及品质的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2017, 49(4):21-25. |
[13] | 杨延兵, 秦岭, 陈二影, 等. 播期和密度对强分蘖谷子书香1号农艺性状和产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016, 48(8):34-37. |
[14] | 李国瑜, 丛新军, 秦岭, 等. 播期对夏谷幼穗分化及叶龄指数的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(4):612-624. |
[15] | 王钰云, 王宏富, 李智, 等. 谷子花生间作对谷子光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(5):153-165. |
[16] | 刘柱, 孟维伟, 南镇武, 等. 盐碱地不同种植模式对谷子花生生长发育及产量形成的影响[J]. 花生学报, 2019, 48(2):31-37. |
[17] | MAO L L, ZHANG L Z, LI W Q, et al. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop[J]. Field crops research, 2012, 138. |
[18] | 李玉英, 余常兵, 孙建好, 等. 蚕豆/玉米间作系统经济生态施氮量及对氮素环境承受力[J]. 农业工程学报, 2008(3):223-227. |
[19] | 刘朝茂, 李成云. 玉米与大豆间作对玉米叶片衰老的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2017, 33(2):322-326. |
[20] | 李智, 王宏富, 王钰云, 等. 谷子大豆间作对谷子生物性状及产量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(2):193-197,212. |
[21] | 冯良山, 孙占祥, 郑家明, 等. 不同水肥条件对间作花生和谷子水分养分利用的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015, 33(5):24-29. |
[22] | 冯良山, 孙占祥, 郑家明, 等. 花生谷子间作对农田生产力和水分利用效率的影响[A].中国农学会耕作制度分会.中国农学会耕作制度分会2016年学术年会论文摘要集[C]. 中国农学会耕作制度分会:中国农学会耕作制度分会, 2016: 51. |
[23] | 杨燕竹, 杜青, 陈平, 等. 玉米大豆播期衔接对间作大豆干物质积累及产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2017, 32(3):96-102. |
[24] |
DONG N, TANG M M, ZHANG W P, et al. Temporal Differentiation of Crop Growth as One of the Drivers of Intercropping Yield Advantage.[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8(1):3110.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21414-w URL |
[25] | 刘明, 陶洪斌, 王璞, 等. 播期对春玉米生长发育与产量形成的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(1):18-23. |
[1] | HE Mi, LI Xiaobo, HUANG Jing, HUANG Guangfu. The Relationship Between Leaf Area Index and Yield of Rice: Research Progress [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 1-5. |
[2] | LIN Tuanrong, WANG Yufeng, WANG Zhen, FAN Longqiu, ZHANG Zhicheng, WANG Wei, HUANG Wenjuan, JIAO Xinlei, WANG Yiqian, XING Jin, YIN Yuhe. Regional Trials of Mid-Late Maturing Potato Varieties in the North China Group 2019-2020 [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 16-21. |
[3] | YANG Fang, LIANG Haiyan, LIN Fengxian, SONG Xiaoqiang, DENG Yarui, LI Hai. The Agronomic Traits of 24 Broomcorn Millet Materials: Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 27-34. |
[4] | NIU Liya, YU Liang, ZHANG Yujie, ZOU Jingwei, LU Li, WANG Fengzhi, WANG Weiwei. Correlation Degree Between Water Stress and Wheat Yield Traits and Grain Bulk Density [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 6-9. |
[5] | GUO Shanhu, ZHOU Zonggui, LIU Min, PAN Wenzheng, ZHANG Lifang, ZHAO Xuetong, ZHANG Qi, XIAO Yongfei. Effects of Soil Improvement Materials on Physicochemical Properties of Soil and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 62-67. |
[6] | LI Jiqin, YUAN Qinghua, LIU Yang, WEN Zhiqiang, QIU Chunren, ZHANG Haixia, MA Zhuwen. Selection and Suitability Evaluation of Eight Introduced Flue-cured Tobacco Varieties in Shaoguan Ecological Tobacco Areas [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(7): 38-44. |
[7] | YAN Yu, WANG Weijian, YAO Yutian, CHEN Chen, QIU Jun, ZHANG Xiaowei, CHEN Xijun. Effect of Several Biological Agents on Controlling Rice Blast and Improving Yield and Quality of Organic Rice [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(7): 5-11. |
[8] | WANG Xiaodan, WANG Yaliang, ZHANG Yuping, XIANG Jing, ZHANG Yikai, CHEN Huizhe. Nitrogen Application: Effect on Yield and Quality of Machine Transplanted Large Panicle Single Cropping Rice [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 1-4. |
[9] | SUN Bin, ZHANG Jiajia, SONG Yujiao, HAI Fei, WANG Lei. 5% Prohexadione Calcium EA: Effects on Lodging Resistance, Yield and Its Related Factors of Wheat [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 14-17. |
[10] | JIN Wu, HE Qi, DU Xingwei, ZHU Xinyan, WEN Haibo, MA Xueyan, HE Yijin, BING Xuwen. Prediction of Crab Yield by BP Neural Network Based on Meteorological Factors of Crab Producing Areas in Jiangsu [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 50-54. |
[11] | ZHU Xiaoling. Current Status, Problems and Countermeasures of Cultivated Land Rotation and Fallow Subsidy [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 85-89. |
[12] | ZHAO Jiatao, FU Zhengbo, YANG Xianghong, LIU Mengdao. Reducing Quantity and Increasing Efficiency of Chemical Fertilizer for ‘Baodamai 20’: A Preliminary Study [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(4): 29-32. |
[13] | DENG Jianwei, JIN Yanzhao. The Optimized Sequence of Leading Crops in Shiyang River Basin Based on Comprehensive Benefits [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 35-39. |
[14] | ZOU Yijing, JIANG Jianhong, WANG Guangfeng, HUANG Kaimei, LIANG Dagang, YAN Shaobing. Effects of Calabash Rootstock Grafting on Growth, Fruit Traits and Yield of Watermelon [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 50-54. |
[15] | AN Li, ZHANG Zhishan, MENG Qinglei, DONG Xuesa, ZHU Shuren, ZHU Yong’an. Morphological Characteristics and Parameters of 1-year-old Micropterus salmoides [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 59-64. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||