The effect of monoculture peanut and cassava/peanut intercropping on physical and chemical properties in peanut rhizosphere soil under the biochar application and straw mulching

Chen, X; Tian, Ye; Guo, Xiongfei; Chen, G K; He, Hongzhi; Li, H S

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/59/1/012021

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This decomposition process is gradual and occurs at a relatively slow rate. Furthermore, during the decomposition of straw, the carbon properties are not as beneficial compared to those of biochar [48]. Therefore, the impact of biochar on soil nutrient enhancement is more significant due to its ability to steadily release nutrients over a prolonged period, offering a sustained improvement in soil fertility and nutrient availability.…”

Section: Impacts Of Straw-returning Measures On Soil Nutrientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Straw Returning Proves Advantageous for Regulating Water and Salt Levels, Facilitating Nutrient Accumulation, and Promoting Crop Growth in Coastal Saline Soils

Liu,

Tang,

Luo

et al. 2024

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saline soils limit plant growth due to high salinity. Straw returning has proven effective in enhancing soil adaptability and agricultural stability on saline lands. This study evaluates the effects of different straw-returning methods—straw mulching (SM), straw incorporation (SI), and straw biochar (BC)—on soil nutrients, water dynamics, and salinity in a barley–cotton rotation system using field box experiments. SM improved soil water retention during barley’s jointing and heading stages, while SI was more effective in its filling and maturation stages. BC showed lesser water storage capacity. During cotton’s growth, SI enhanced early-stage water retention, and SM benefited the flowering and boll opening stages. Grey relational analysis pinpointed significant water relationships at 10 cm and 20 cm soil depths, with SM regulating water across layers. SM and BC notably reduced soil conductivity, primarily within the top 20 cm, and their effectiveness decreased with depth. SI significantly lowered soil conductivity at barley’s jointing stage. SM effectively reduced salinity at 10 cm and 20 cm soil depths, whereas BC decreased soil conductivity throughout barley’s jointing, filling, and heading stages. For cotton, SI lowered soil conductivity at the seedling and boll opening stages. SM consistently reduced salinity across all stages, and BC decreased conductivity in the top 30 cm of soil during all growth stages. Both SM and BC significantly enhanced the total nutrient availability for barley and cotton, especially improving soil organic carbon and available potassium, with BC showing notable improvements. At barley’s heading stage, SI maximized dry matter accumulation, while SM boosted accumulation in leaves, stems, and spikes during the filling and maturation stages. Straw returning increased barley yield, particularly with SM and BC, and improved water use efficiency by 11.60% and 5.74%, respectively. For cotton, straw returning significantly boosted yield and water use efficiency, especially with SI and SM treatments, enhancing the total bolls and yield. In conclusion, straw returning effectively improves saline soils, enhances fertility, boosts crop yields, and supports sustainable agriculture. These results provide a robust scientific foundation for adopting efficient soil improvement strategies on saline lands, with significant theoretical and practical implications for increasing agricultural productivity and crop resilience to salt stress.

show abstract

Section: Impacts Of Straw-returning Measures On Soil Nutrientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Straw Returning Proves Advantageous for Regulating Water and Salt Levels, Facilitating Nutrient Accumulation, and Promoting Crop Growth in Coastal Saline Soils

Liu,

Tang,

Luo

et al. 2024

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For intercropping, farmers have improved water and fertilizer management, which not only increases the yield of intercrop fillers but also fresh cassava yields. Of the above intercropping models, fresh cassava yields per unit area have increased from 7.8 to 25.2% when intercropped with watermelon, pumpkin, muskmelon or chiehqua, and 6.1 to 17.4% when intercropped with peanut or soybean, relative to monocropping cassava (Chen et al 2017b, Lu et al 2011. The ranking for the intercropping crops for increasing fresh cassava yield was muskmelon > pumpkin > soybean > watermelon > chieh-qua > peanut (Lu et al 2011).…”

Section: Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cassava breeding and agronomy in Asia: 50 years of history and future directions

Malik¹,

Kongsil

Nguyen

et al. 2020

Breed. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Asia, cassava (Manihot esculenta) is cultivated by more than 8 million farmers, driving the rural economy of many countries. The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), in partnership with national agricultural research institutes (NARIs), instigated breeding and agronomic research in Asia, 1983. The breeding program has successfully released high-yielding cultivars resulting in an average yield increase from 13.0 t ha-1 in 1996 to 21.3 t ha-1 in 2016, with significant economic benefits. Following the success in increasing yields, cassava breeding has turned its focus to higher-value traits, such as waxy cassava, to reach new market niches. More recently, building resistance to invasive pests and diseases has become a top priority due to the emergent threat of cassava mosaic disease (CMD). The agronomic research involves driving profitability with advanced technologies focusing on better agronomic management practices thereby maintaining sustainable production systems. Remote sensing technologies are being tested for trait discovery and large-scale field evaluation of cassava. In summary, cassava breeding in Asia is driven by a combination of food and market demand with technological innovations to increase the productivity. Further, exploration in the potential of data-driven agriculture is needed to empower researchers and producers for sustainable advancement.

show abstract

“…Intercropping, which refers to the concurrent cultivation of two or more crops on the same plot (Willey, 1990), offers heightened crop yield and stability compared with monocropping (Lan et al, 2023;Parvin et al, 2023). This agricultural practice mitigates the adverse environmental impacts associated with modern farming methods while simultaneously optimizing soil nutrient, water, and resource utilization (Chen et al, 2017). Various common species can be utilized for intercropping (Qu et al, 2023), and studies have demonstrated notable advantages when legumes are included-for instance, Qu et al (2022) revealed that rape with common vetch significantly increased biomass, reduced soil pH, and increased soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil available phosphorus (AP).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of intercropping with legumes at different rates on the yield and soil physicochemical properties of Cyperus esculentus L. in arid land

Shen,

Liu,

et al. 2024

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intercropping has the potential to enhance yields and nutrient availability in resource-limited agricultural systems. However, the effects on crop yield nutrients and soil properties can vary considerably depending on the specific plant combinations and intercropping ratios used. In this study, the advantages and impacts of intercropping C. esculentus with legumes were investigated by measuring their biomass, nutrient content, and soil properties. The experiment included five intercropping treatments: monoculture of C. esculentus (MC), intercropping of C. esculentus with Medicago sativa L. (alfalfa) at row spacing ratios of 4:4 (4:4CM) and 8:4 (8:4CM), and intercropping of C. esculentus with Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybean), also at row spacing ratios of 4:4 (4:4CG) and 8:4 (8:4CG). Our results demonstrated that all four intercropping treatments (4:4CM, 4:4CG, 8:4CM, and 8:4CG) significantly increased the biomass of C. esculentus by approximately 41.05%, 41.73%, 16.08%, and 18.43%, respectively, compared with monoculture cultivation alone, among which the 4:4CG treatment was optimum. However, no significant differences were observed in alfalfa or soybean biomass across different intercropping ratios. A notable increase was found in the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) contents in the leaves, roots, and tubers of C. esculentus under intercropping, along with increased soil organic carbon (SOC), alkaline-hydrolyzed nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN), and soil water content (SWC), and significantly reduced the soil pH. Among the intercropping treatments, the 4:4CG treatment also exhibited the most favorable soil properties. In particular, compared with MC, the 4:4CG treatment resulted in significant increases of 163.8%, 394.6%, and 716.8% in SOC, AN, and AP contents, respectively. The same treatment also led to significant increases of 48.34%, 46.40%, and 208.65% in MBC, MBN, and SWC, respectively. Overall, the findings suggest that the use of 4:4CG intercropping is an effective approach for sustainable farming management in Xinjiang.

show abstract

The effect of monoculture peanut and cassava/peanut intercropping on physical and chemical properties in peanut rhizosphere soil under the biochar application and straw mulching

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Straw Returning Proves Advantageous for Regulating Water and Salt Levels, Facilitating Nutrient Accumulation, and Promoting Crop Growth in Coastal Saline Soils

Straw Returning Proves Advantageous for Regulating Water and Salt Levels, Facilitating Nutrient Accumulation, and Promoting Crop Growth in Coastal Saline Soils

Cassava breeding and agronomy in Asia: 50 years of history and future directions

Effect of intercropping with legumes at different rates on the yield and soil physicochemical properties of Cyperus esculentus L. in arid land

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About