Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2021, Vol. 8 Issue (3) : 432-446    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021403
RESEARCH ARTICLE
LIGHT INTERCEPTION AND USE EFFICIENCY DIFFER WITH MAIZE PLANT DENSITY IN MAIZE-PEANUT INTERCROPPING
Qi WANG1,2,3, Zhanxiang SUN4, Wei BAI4, Dongsheng ZHANG5, Yue ZHANG2, Ruonan WANG2, Wopke VAN DER WERF3, Jochem B. EVERS3, Tjeerd-Jan STOMPH3, Jianping GUO1, Lizhen ZHANG2()
1. State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather (LASW), Chinese Academy of Meteorological Science, Beijing 100081, China.
2. China Agricultural University, College of Agricultural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
3. Wageningen University, Centre for Crop Systems Analysis (CSA), Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands.
4. Tillage and Cultivation Research Institute, Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenyang 110161, China.
5. Shanxi Agricultural University, College of Agriculture, Taigu 030800, China.
 Download: PDF(2335 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

• Intercropping intercepted more light than sole peanut but less than sole maize.

• Maize light use efficiency (LUE) increased with plant density in the intercropping.

• Intercropping did not affect LUE of maize but increased peanut LUE.

Intercropping increases crop yields by optimizing light interception and/or use efficiency. Although intercropping combinations and metrics have been reported, the effects of plant density on light use are not well documented. Here, we examined the light interception and use efficiency in maize-peanut intercropping with different maize plant densities in two row configurations in semiarid dryland agriculture over a two-year period. The field experiment comprised four cropping systems, i.e. monocropped maize, monocropped peanut, maize-peanut intercropping with two rows of maize and four rows of peanut, intercropping with four rows of maize and four rows of peanut, and three maize plant densities (3.0, 4.5 and 6.0 plants m−1 row) in both monocropped and intercropping maize. The mean total light interception in intercropping across years and densities was 779 MJ·m−2, 5.5% higher than in monocropped peanut (737 MJ·m−2) and 7.6% lower than in monocropped maize (843 MJ·m−2). Increasing maize density increased light interception in monocropped maize but did not affect the total light interception in the intercrops. Across years the LUE of maize was 2.9 g·MJ−1 and was not affected by cropping system but increased with maize plant density. The LUE of peanut was enhanced in intercropping, especially in a wetter year. The yield advantage of maize-peanut intercropping resulted mainly from the LUE of peanut. These results will help to optimize agronomic management and system design and provide evidence for system level light use efficiency in intercropping.
Keywords dryland agriculture      light interception      light use efficiency      maize-peanut intercropping      semiarid     
Corresponding Author(s): Lizhen ZHANG   
Just Accepted Date: 04 June 2021   Online First Date: 21 June 2021    Issue Date: 26 September 2021
 Cite this article:   
Qi WANG,Zhanxiang SUN,Wei BAI, et al. LIGHT INTERCEPTION AND USE EFFICIENCY DIFFER WITH MAIZE PLANT DENSITY IN MAIZE-PEANUT INTERCROPPING[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 432-446.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2021403
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2021/V8/I3/432
Fig.1  Daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures and rainfall in 2016 (a) and 2017 (b) in Fuxin, Liaoning Province. The total annual rainfall was 580 mm in 2016 and 386 mm in 2017.
Fig.2  Plant height of maize in monocropping and intercropping systems at three maize densities. M represents monocropped maize; M4P4 is the intercropping systems of four rows maize with four rows peanut; M2P4 is the intercropping systems of two rows maize with four rows peanut. Error bars are the standard error values.
Fig.3  Plant height of peanut in monocropping and intercropping with three maize densities. P represents the monocropped peanut; M2P4 is the intercropping systems of two rows maize with four rows peanut; M4P4 is the intercropping systems of four rows maize with four rows peanut. Error bars are the standard error values.
Fig.4  Leaf area index (LAI) of maize in response to maize densities in monocropping and intercropping systems. M represents monocropped maize; M4P4 is the intercropping systems of four rows maize with four rows peanut; M2P4 is the intercropping systems of two rows maize with four rows peanut. The regression data was calculated by Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). Error bars are the standard error values.
Year System Maize plant density (plants m−1) Maize Peanut
LAIm (m2·m−2) te (d) Cm (m2·m−2·d−1) tm (d) LAIm (m2·m−2) te (d) Cm (m2·m−2·d−1) tm (d)
2016 Mono 3.0 4.42 c 84.8 a 0.075 b 27.0 a 60.4
4.5 5.56 b 84.2 a 0.097 a 24.0 a 4.03 98.5 0.068
6.0 6.36 a 86.2 a 0.107 a 25.9 a
M4P4 3.0 2.33 c 84.9 a 0.041 c 22.1 a 1.51 a 96.1 a 0.025 a 55.3 a
4.5 3.06 b 85.3 a 0.052 b 26.9 a 1.38 a 95.5 a 0.023 a 53.6 a
6.0 3.66 a 84.8 a 0.063 a 23.2 a 1.26 a 95.8 a 0.021 a 53.4 a
M2P4 3.0 1.64 c 86.9 a 0.027 c 26.9 a 2.11 a 98.0 a 0.034 a 56.6 a
4.5 2.18 b 83.6 b 0.038 b 21.5 ab 1.94 a 96.0 a 0.031 a 52.7 a
6.0 2.54 a 83.4 b 0.045 a 19.9 b 1.90 a 97.2 a 0.033 a 59.9 a
2017 Mono 3.0 4.52 c 92.9 a 0.074 c 48.8 a 59.9
4.5 5.72 b 91.2 ab 0.095 b 47.4 a 4.28 98.4 0.071
6.0 6.49 a 89.9 b 0.108 a 43.9 a
M4P4 3.0 2.32 b 93.3 a 0.038 b 48.6 a 1.57 a 91.8 a 0.026 a 47.3 a
4.5 3.04 a 92.3 a 0.048 a 43.7 a 1.53 a 91.7 a 0.025 a 46.4 a
6.0 3.39 a 91.8 a 0.054 a 42.5 a 1.39 a 91.9 a 0.023 a 46.5 a
M2P4 3.0 1.62 c 91.6 a 0.027 c 43.3 a 2.19 a 94.1 a 0.036 a 52.3 a
4.5 2.19 b 93.6 a 0.035 b 46.4 a 1.98 ab 92.2 a 0.033 a 48.8 a
6.0 2.76 a 94.1 a 0.045 a 49.9 a 1.85 b 92.6 a 0.031 a 50.6 a
Interaction P value
Density 0.000 0.346 0.000 0.254 0.086 0.489 0.142 0.903
System 0.000 0.539 0.000 0.545 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
Year 0.675 0.000 0.082 0.000 0.246 0.000 0.313 0.001
Density × System 0.0004 0.928 0.001 0.765 – – – –
Density × Year 0.990 0.804 0.733 0.795 0.902 0.948 0.794 0.669
System × Year 0.437 0.181 0.417 0.635 0.634 0.129 0.843 0.402
Density × System × Year 0.546 0.002 0.584 0.033 – – – –
Tab.1  Fitted parameters for the growth of leaf area index (LAI) in maize and peanut in different systems, monocropping (Mono) and two intercropping (M4P4 and M2P4) systems
Fig.5  Leaf area index (LAI) of peanut in response to maize densities in monocropping and intercropping systems. M4P4 represents the intercropping systems of four rows maize with four rows peanut; M2P4 represents the intercropping systems of two rows maize with four rows peanut; P represents monocropped peanut. The regression data were calculated by Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). Error bars are the standard error values.
Fig.6  Fraction of light interception in response to maize density in monocropping and intercropping systems. In the panels (a) and (b), the black dashed line represents the fraction of light interception of monocropped peanut. M4P4 represents the intercropping systems of four rows maize with four rows peanut; M2P4 represents the intercropping systems of two rows maize with four rows peanut.
Fig.7  Light interception of maize, peanut and total in monocropping and intercropping systems at three maize densities. M represents moncropped maize; P represents monocropped peanut. Error bars are the standard error values.
Year System Maize plant density (plants m−1) Dry matter (g·m−2) LUE (g·MJ−1·m−2)
Maize Peanut Maize Peanut
2016 Monocropped peanut – 860 1.16
Monocropped maize 3.0 2292 b 2.82 a
4.5 2961 ab 3.36 a
6.0 3092 a 3.39 a
M4P4 3.0 1347 a 382 a 2.69 a 1.44 a
4.5 1520 a 334 a 2.75 a 1.37 a
6.0 1646 a 324 a 2.80 a 1.43 a
M2P4 3.0 1037 b 481 a 2.67 b 1.28 a
4.5 1377 a 468 a 3.07 ab 1.29 a
6.0 1505 a 409 a 3.18 a 1.23 a
2017 Monocropped peanut – 1003 1.36
Monocropped maize 3.0 1932 b 2.53 b
4.5 2520 a 3.06 a
6.0 2472 a 2.83 ab
M4P4 3.0 1282 b 402 a 2.80 a 1.45 a
4.5 1609 a 344 a 3.07 a 1.32 a
6.0 1608 a 335 a 2.95 a 1.39 a
M2P4 3.0 963 b 518 a 2.61 a 1.37 a
4.5 1246 a 478 a 2.98 a 1.39 a
6.0 1233 a 471 a 2.71 a 1.46 a
Interaction P value
Density 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.801
System 0.000 0.000 0.177 0.032
Year 0.001 0.035 0.073 0.118
Density × System 0.108 0.921 0.367 0.525
Density × Year 0.327 0.814 0.225 0.588
System × Year 0.008 0.384 0.007 0.019
Density × System × Year 0.698 0.576 0.550 0.255
Tab.2  Light use efficiency (LUE) of maize and peanut in different systems, monocropping and two intercropping (M4P4 and M2P4) systems
1 M O Martin-Guay, A Paquette, J Dupras, D Rivest. The new Green Revolution: sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 615: 767–772
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024 pmid: 28992501
2 Q F Meng, Q P Sun, X P Chen, Z L Cui, S C Yue, F S Zhang, V Romheld. Alternative cropping systems for sustainable water and nitrogen use in the North China Plain. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2012, 146(1): 93–102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.015
3 Y Yu, T J Stomph, D Makowski, W van der Werf. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2015, 184: 133–144
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010
4 L Zhang, W van der Werf, L Bastiaans, S Zhang, B Li, J H J Spiertz. Light interception and radiation use efficiency in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton. Field Crops Research, 2008, 107(1): 29–42
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.12.014
5 L L Mao, L Zhang, W Q Li, W van der Werf, J H Sun, H Spiertz, L Li. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research, 2012, 138: 11–20
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.019
6 L Li, L Z Zhang, F S Zhang. Crop mixtures and the mechanisms of overyielding. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (second edition), 2013: 382–395
7 M A Boudreau. Diseases in intercropping systems. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 2013, 51(1): 499–519
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102246 pmid: 23725470
8 M Liebman, E Dyck. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications, 1993, 3(1): 92–122
https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795 pmid: 27759234
9 S J Risch. Intercropping as cultural pest control: Prospects and limitations. Environmental Management, 1983, 7(1): 9–14
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867035
10 Q Cai, Y Zhang, Z Sun, J Zheng, W Bai, Y Zhang, Y Liu, L Feng, C Feng, Z Zhang, N Yang, J B Evers, L Zhang. Morphological plasticity of root growth under mild water stress increases water use efficiency without reducing yield in maize. Biogeosciences, 2017, 14(16): 3851–3858
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3851-2017
11 G A Maddonni, M Chelle, J L Drouet, B Andrieu. Light interception of contrasting azimuth canopies under square and rectangular plant spatial distributions: simulations and crop measurements. Field Crops Research, 2001, 70(1): 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00144-1
12 G A Maddonni, M E Otegui, A G Cirilo. Plant population density, row spacing and hybrid effects on maize canopy architecture and light attenuation. Field Crops Research, 2001, 71(3): 183–193
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00158-7
13 J I Lizaso, W D Batchelor, M E Westgate, L Echarte. Enhancing the ability CERES-Maize to compute light capture. Agricultural Systems, 2003, 76(1): 293–311
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00003-3
14 Y Gao, A Duan, X Qiu, J Sun, J Zhang, H Liu, H Wang. Distribution and use efficiency of photosynthetically active radiation in strip intercropping of maize and soybean. Agronomy Journal, 2010, 102(4): 1149–1157
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0409
15 B A Keating, P S Carberry. Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation. Field Crops Research, 1993, 34(3–4): 273–301
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(93)90118-7
16 D Zhang, Z Sun, L Feng, W Bai, N Yang, Z Zhang, G Du, C Feng, Q Cai, Q Wang, Y Zhang, R Wang, A Arshad, X Hao, M Sun, Z Gao, L Zhang. Maize plant density affects yield, growth and source-sink relationship of crops in maize/peanut intercropping. Field Crops Research, 2020, 257: 107926
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107926
17 P E Reynolds, J A Simpson, N V Thevathasan, A M Gordon. Effects of tree competition on corn and soybean photosynthesis, growth, and yield in a temperate tree-based agroforestry intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Ecological Engineering, 2007, 29(4): 362–371
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.09.024
18 D Harris, M Natarajan, R W Willey. Physiological basis for yield advantage in a sorghum/groundnut intercrop exposed to drought. 1. Dry-matter production, yield, and light interception. Field Crops Research, 1987, 17(3–4): 259–272
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(87)90039-6
19 R J Van Roekel, J A Coulter. Agronomic responses of corn to planting date and plant density. Agronomy Journal, 2011, 103(5): 1414–1422
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0071
20 F Ofori, W R Stem. Relative sowing time and density of component crops in a maize/cowpea intercrop system. Experimental Agriculture, 1987, 23(1): 41–52
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700003392
21 W Zhang, G Liu, J Sun, L Zhang, J Weiner, L Li. Growth trajectories and interspecific competitive dynamics in wheat/maize and barley/maize intercropping. Plant and Soil, 2015, 379(1–2): 227–238
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2619-x
22 J M Watiki, S Fukai, J A Banda, B A Keating. Radiation interception and growth of maize/cowpea intercrop as affected by maize plant density and cowpea cultivar. Field Crops Research, 1993, 35(2): 123–133
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(93)90145-D
23 R B Prasad, R M Brook. Effect of varying maize densities on intercropped maize and soybean in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture, 2005, 41(3): 365–382
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479705002693
24 G L Hammer, G C Wright. A theoretical analysis of nitrogen and radiation effects on radiation use efficiency in peanut. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1994, 45(3): 575–589
https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9940575
25 T R Sinclair, R C Muchow. Radiation use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy, 1999, 65: 215–265
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60914-1
26 D Zhang, L Zhang, J Liu, S Han, Q Wang, J Evers, J Liu, W van der Werf, L Li. Plant density affects light interception and yield in cotton grown as companion crop in young jujube plantations. Field Crops Research, 2014, 169: 132–139
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.09.001
27 X Liu, T Rahman, C Song, F Yang, B Su, L Cui, W Bu, W Yang. Relationships among light distribution, radiation use efficiency and land equivalent ratio in maize-soybean strip intercropping. Field Crops Research, 2018, 224: 91–101
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.010
28 L Borrás, G A Maddonni, M E Otegui. Leaf senescence in maize hybrids: plant population: row spacing and kernel set effects. Field Crops Research, 2003, 82(1): 13–26
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00002-9
29 Q Jia, L Sun, H Mou, S Ali, D Liu, Y Zhang, P Zhang, X Ren, Z Jia. Effects of planting patterns and sowing densities on grain-filling, radiation use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 2018, 201: 287–298
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.025
30 Q Wang, D Zhang, L Zhang, S Han, W van der Werf, J B Evers, Z Su, N P R Anten. Spatial configuration drives complementary capture of light of the understory cotton in young jujube plantations. Field Crops Research, 2017, 213: 21–28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.016
31 M C Peel, B L Finlayson, T A McMahon. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2007, 4: 439–473
32 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Rome: FAO, 2015. Available at FAO website on March 13, 2021
33 Q Wang, W Bai, Z Sun, D Zhang, Y Zhang, R Wang, J B Evers, T Stomph, W van der Werf, C Feng, L Zhang. Does reduced intraspecific competition of the dominant species in intercrops allow for a higher population density? Food and Energy Security, 2021, 10(2): 285–298
https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.270
34 X Yin, J Goudriaan, E A Lantinga, J Vos, H J Spiertz. A flexible sigmoid function of determinate growth. Annals of Botany, 2003, 91(3): 361–371
https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcg029 pmid: 12547689
35 F Gou, M K van Ittersum, E Simon, P A Leffelaar, P E L van der Putten, L Zhang, W van der Werf. Intercropping wheat and maize increases total radiation interception and wheat RUE but lowers maize RUE. European Journal of Agronomy, 2017, 84: 125–139
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.10.014
36 M V K Sivakumar, S M Virmani. Crop productivity in relation to interception of photosynthetically active radiation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1984, 31(2): 131–141
https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(84)90015-7
37 D J Collino, J L Dardanelli, R Sereno, R W Racca. Physiological responses of argentine peanut varieties to water stress: light interception, radiation use efficiency and partitioning of assimilates. Field Crops Research, 2001, 70(3): 177–184
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00137-X
38 M Davidian, D M Giltinan. Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measurement data: an overview and update. Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics, 2003, 8(4): 387–419
https://doi.org/10.1198/1085711032697
39 B Bolker. Likelihood and all that. In: Bolker B, eds. Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2007, 228–234
40 M A Awal, H Koshi, T Ikeda. Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2006, 139(1–2): 74–83
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.06.001
41 G A Maddonni, M E Otegui. Leaf area, light inter-ception, and crop development in maize. Field Crops Research, 1996, 48(1): 81–87
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(96)00035-4
42 K D Healey, G L Hammer, K G Rickert, M P Bange. Radiation use efficiency increases when the diffuse component of incident radiation is enhanced under shade. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1998, 49(4): 665–672
https://doi.org/10.1071/A97100
43 W Worku, W Demisie. Growth, light interception and radiation use efficiency response of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) to planting density in southern Ethiopia. Journal of Agronomy, 2012, 11(4): 85–93
https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2012.85.93
44 L Mao, L Zhang, X Zhao, S Liu, W van der Werf, S Zhang, H Spiertz, Z Li. Crop growth: light utilization and yield of relay intercropped cotton as affected by plant density and a plant growth regulator. Field Crops Research, 2014, 155: 67–76
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.09.021
45 R Wang, Z Sun, L Zhang, N Yang, L Feng, W Bai, D Zhang, Q Wang, J B Evers, Y Liu, J Ren, Y Zhang, W van der Werf. Border-row proportion determines strength of interspecific interactions and crop yields in maize/peanut strip intercropping. Field Crops Research, 2020, 253: 107819
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107819
46 H Dong, W Li, A E Eneji, D Zhang. Nitrogen rate and plant density effects on yield and late-season leaf senescence of cotton raised on a saline field. Field Crops Research, 2012, 126: 137–144
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.10.005
47 H Yao, Y Zhang, X Yi, X Zhang, W Zhang. Cotton responds to different plant population densities by adjusting specific leaf area to optimize canopy photosynthetic use efficiency of light and nitrogen. Field Crops Research, 2016, 188: 10–16
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.01.012
48 J Xue, P F Dong, S P Hu, L L Li, K R Wang, S Gao, Y Z Wang, S K Li. Effect of lodging on maize grain loss and loss reduction technology in mechanical grain harvest. Maize Sciences, 2020, 28(6): 116–120 (in Chinese)
49 L Gong, S Qu, G Huang, Y Guo, M Zhang, Z Li, Y Zhou, L Duan. Improving maize grain yield by formulating plant growth regulator strategies in North China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2021, 20(2): 622–632
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63453-0
50 C Xu, Y Gao, B Tian, J Ren, Q Meng, P Wang. Effects of EDAH, a noval plant growth regulator, on methanical strength, stalk vascular bundles and grain yield of summer maize at high densities. Field Crops Research, 2017, 200: 71–79
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.10.011
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed