An experiment was carried out at the field units of the north campus experi mental areas in Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling , Shaanxi Province, P. R. China. The experiment was conducted on summer season (June to September) to determine the effects of different planting patterns of maize and soybean intercropping in resource consumption on fodder yield and silage quality. The main treatments were one sole crop of maiz e (SM) and four maize-soybean intercropping patterns (1 row maize to 1 row soybean (1M1S), 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean (1M2S), 1 rows maize to 3 rows soybean (1M3S) and 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean (2M1S), respectively. The experiment was a randomized complete block design with three replications, and plot size of 12 m by 5 m. The crops were harvested when the maize reached at milk stage and soybean at R7 stage. The result indicated significant increase in fresh biomass and dry matter production of maize fodder alone as compared to maize intercropped with soybean fodder. It was correlated with a higher consumption of environmental resources, such as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and soil moisture by intercropping. After 45 days of ensiling period, silage samples were analyzed for pH, organic acids (Lactic, acetic, and butyric) , dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K). It was concluded that in all intercropped silages, crude protein (CP) values were higher (1M1S, 12.1%; 1M2S, 12.2%; 1M3S, 12.4%; 2M1S, 12.1%) than the monocrop maize (SM, 8.7%) silage. Higher organic acids (p < 0.05) were produced in the 1M3S silages as compared to others silages. The study indicated that among all intercropped silages, the 1M3S (1 row maize to 3 rows soy bean) was preferable according to nutrient composition than other inter cropped silages.
Maize (Zea mays. L) played an important role in China’s food system since it was introduced from the American continent in the 1500s. The introduction of maize contributed to a surge of Chinese population growth as its cultivation expanded on hillsides and other marginal land [
As a cultivation system, intercropping involves the planting of two or more crop species on the same field [
The intercropping yields are often higher than in sole cropping systems [
The present study was designed to determine the effect of different patterns of maize-soybean intercropping in resource consumption on fodder yield and silage quality. The hypotheses we tested were: intercropping is better in a) light capture, b) soil water conservation, c) fodder yield and d) silage quality by increasing protein content, compared to sole maize.
A field experiment was carried out during the growing season in summer June, 2016 at the North campus experimental areas (34˚18'00''N, 108˚5'42''E) in Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Shaanxi, Yangling, China. The experiment was established on a sandy clay loam soil with 8.3 pH (
The crop production was carried out with a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Summer maize (Zea mays L. Zheng Dan 958) was seeded as monocrop (SM) and intercropped with soybean (Glycine max L. Zao
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
Depth (cm) | 20 - 40 |
Organic matter (%) | 1.5 |
Texture | Sandy clay loam |
Nitrogen (%) | 0.2 |
Phosphorus (ppm) | 0.3 |
Potassium (ppm) | 400 |
pH | 8.3 |
Month | Minimum temp (˚C) | Maximum temp (˚C) | Relative humidity (%) | Rainfall (mm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
June | 29.8 | 39.3 | 26 | NR | |
July | 27.2 | 38.2 | 20 | NR | |
August | 24.3 | 37.3 | 24 | NR | |
September | 19.6 | 29.4 | 34 | 1.5 |
NR = no rainfall.
Huang) as provided in
Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) was measured two times during the
Treatment | Description |
---|---|
SM | Sole Maize |
1M1S | 1 row maize to 1 row soybean |
1M2S | 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean |
1M3S | 1 row maize to 3 rows soybean |
2M1S | 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean |
crops growing season (30 and 60 days after sowing) between 12 - 14 hours on occasions. A Sun fleck ceptometer (model SF-80T) was used to measure above the plant canopy and the soil surface at 5 randomly selected locations within each plot. Mean values for each plot were then used to calculate the percentage of PAR intercept by plant canopy. Percentage of PAR intercept was calculated according to the formula as follows:
where PARa is PAR above the canopy and PARb is PAR below the canopy. The soil water balance was estimated to be influenced by different cropping systems. Soil water content at 0 - 0.25 m depth was determined on two occasions (30 and 60-days after sowing) during the growing season. Soil samples were taken from three locations within each plot and a well mixed sample was used to determine soil moisture content by gravimetric measurement. Soil temperature was also recorded at a depth of 0 - 10 cm below the surface on two occasions in all plots, using a soil thermometer.
The fresh fodders were manually harvested when the maize reached at milk stage and soybean at R7 stage and chopped into 2 to 4 cm in length with chaff cutter (TZ9Z-0.4, Power chaff cutter, Henan, China) and ensiled without additives into the plastic bags. The plastic bags were used for each type of silage and packing was done by manual trampling on the fodder. The plastic bags were sealed airtight and kept at room temperatures to permit for anaerobic fermentation for 45 days. Before fermentation, samples of 300 to 500 g were taken for nutrient composition analysis. After the ensiling period, the mature samples were taken from the centre of ensiled mass of each plastic bags for further nutritive values. The fodder and silage samples were air-dried and ground by grinder and then flour samples were stored into a refrigerator for further chemical analysis.
A 10 g sample was taken, mixed with 100 ml of distilled water and stored in a refrigerator at 5˚C for 24 hrs. Then, the material was filtered and pH was determined on the filtrate with a glass electrode pH meter (PHS-3C, CSDIHO Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China). Dry matter (DM) content was determined by oven drying at 80˚C for 24 hrs and ground to pass through a 2 mm screen. The ground samples were ashed at 550˚C [
Data of maize and soybean fodder yields, and chemical analysis of different silages was analyzed by One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS (version 21.0) and Duncan test (α = 0.05) was used to compare the treatments means.
The percentage of PAR interception was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by cropping system (
Soil temperature was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by cropping systems. At 30 DAS and 60 DAS, the soil temperatures for intercrop treatments were significantly lower than that of sole cropped maize (
The moisture content of soil, determined by gravimetric method, was significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by cropping system (
Green fodder yield and nutrients composition of maize and maize intercropped with soybean at different planting structure are shown in
Cropping system | PAR % | |
---|---|---|
30 DAS | 60 DAS | |
SM | 31.8b | 60.1b |
1M1S | 37.3a | 66.8a |
1M2S | 37.6a | 67.1a |
1M3S | 36.9a | 66.4a |
2M1S | 37.1a | 66.6a |
Different letters in the column mean significant difference (P < 0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1S, 1 row maize to 1 row soybean; 1M2S, 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean; 1M3S,1 row maize to 3 rows soybean; 2M1S, 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean; DAS, day after sowing.
Cropping system | Soil temperature (˚C) | |
---|---|---|
30 DAS | 60 DAS | |
SM | 29.0a | 29.0a |
1M1S | 27.9b | 28.0b |
1M2S | 28.0b | 28.2b |
1M3S | 27.9b | 28.2b |
2M1S | 27.8b | 28.2b |
Different letters in the column mean significant difference (P < 0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1S, 1 row maize to 1 row soybean; 1M2S, 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean; 1M3S, 1 row maize to 3 rows soybean; 2M1S, 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean; DAS, day after sowing.
Cropping system | Soil moisture content (%) | |
---|---|---|
30 DAS | 60 DAS | |
SM | 12.3b | 60.0b |
1M1S | 15.7a | 73.1a |
1M2S | 15.6a | 73.5a |
1M3S | 15.8a | 72.1a |
2M1S | 15.6a | 72.6a |
Different letters in the column mean significant difference (P < 0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1S, 1 row maize to 1 row soybean; 1M2S, 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean; 1M3S, 1 row maize to 3 rows soybean; 2M1S, 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean; DAS, day after sowing.
Fodder | Yields (ton/ha) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Fresh biomass | Dry matter | Crude protein* | |
SM | 46.2a | 14.5a | 1.9d |
1M1S | 31.9e | 12.1d | 2.3b |
1M2S | 34.5d | 12.1d | 2.4b |
1M3S | 36.4c | 12.3c | 2.6a |
2M1S | 40.3b | 13.2b | 2.2c |
Different letters in the column mean significant difference (P < 0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1S, 1 row maize to 1 row soybean; 1M2S, 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean; 1M3S, 1 row maize to 3 rows soybean; 2M1S, 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean. *On dry matter basis.
Results of fermentation quality of different silages are shown in
Results of nutrient composition of different silages are depicted in
Parameter | Silage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SM | 1M1S | 1M2S | 1M3S | 2M1S | |
pH | 3.8d | 4.1c | 4.2b | 4.4a | 4.1c |
Lactic acid | 9.0c | 11.1b | 11.2b | 12.1a | 11.2b |
Acetic acid | 9.2e | 10.2d | 10.5b | 13.1a | 10.3c |
Butyric acid | 2.1c | 2.1c | 2.9b | 3.1a | 2.1c |
Different letters in the column mean significant difference (P < 0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1S, 1 row maize to 1 row soybean; 1M2S, 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean; 1M3S, 1 row maize to 3 rows soybean; 2M1S, 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean.
Nutrient composition | Silage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SM | 1M1S | 1M2S | 1M3S | 2M1S | |
DM, % | 29.2d | 30.2bc | 31.7b | 32.1a | 30.1c |
CP, % | 8.7c | 12.1b | 12.2b | 12.4a | 12.1b |
Ash, % | 7.7a | 7.2dc | 7.3c | 7.3b | 7.2c |
NDF, % | 40.1a | 29.9d | 36.1c | 38.1b | 30.2d |
ADF, % | 22.1a | 18.2d | 20.4c | 20.7b | 18.2d |
Ca, % | 0.25c | 0.31b | 0.32b | 0.35a | 0.31b |
Na, % | 0.15bc | 0.16b | 0.16b | 0.18a | 0.16b |
K, % | 2.2a | 2.3ab | 2.3ab | 2.3ab | 2.3ab |
Mg, % | 0.19b | 0.21ab | 0.21ab | 0.22a | 0.21ab |
P, % | 0.30c | 0.31b | 0.32ab | 0.33a | 0.31b |
Different letters in the column mean significant difference (P < 0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1S, 1 row maize to 1 row soybean; 1M2S, 1 row maize to 2 rows soybean; 1M3S, 1 row maize to 3 rows soybean; 2M1S, 2 rows maize to 1 row soybean.
Planting pattern is the systematic evaluation of the farm area or any growing surface for crop production. Different systems of planting patterns within the row are practiced in both single and multiple rows planting, depending on the characteristics and requirement of the crop, particularly its extent of canopy expansion. In the present study, maize fodder alone was significantly increased fresh biomass and dry matter production than the other intercropped fodder (
The differences in vertical display of plants and canopy design of intercrop components, may lead to more PAR interception by intercropping compared with sole crops [
The chemical (DM, yield) and physiological (growth and development) differences among intercrop components result in their ability to occupy different function. Thus, environmental resources could be more efficiently utilized then intercropping converted to biomass by mixed stands of crops than by pure stands. Therefore, in the present experiment, more PAR interception and also a greater water extract (
The optimum Dry Matter (DM) range of ideal maize silage is between 28% and 32% [
The effects of the soybean mixtures on silage fermentation were in the directions expected. Legumes have larger organic acid concentrations than grasses; therefore, in general legume silages have higher pH because of the higher buffering capacity caused by the organic acids [
The main objectives of intercropped silage are to attain a complementary effect of the desirable nutrient of two or more crops. In the present study it was determined that the crude protein value of intercropped silages 1M1S, 1M2S, 1M3S, and 2M1S were (P < 0.05) higher as compared to SM. Legumes are good sources of protein. The intercropping of maize with a variety of protein rich forages could enhance silage CP level by 3% - 5% and improve N digestibility, indicating a potential to reduce the requirement for purchased protein supplements [
The conclusion of present study demonstrated that intercropping of maize with soybean at various planting structure showed to be an effective way to influence fresh biomass production, dry matter and crude protein to maintain or enhance nutrient quality of silage ensuring the supply of nutritionally rich silage for livestock feeding. Finally, it can be concluded that environmental resource consumption, especially PAR interception in intercropping system was better than sole crop. The results of this experiment could provide some quantitative evidence for the hypothesis that greater environmental resources consumption (such as PAR and soil moisture) by intercrops is a primary advantage on fodder performance. After concluding results, it’s showed that intercropping of maize with soybean influenced CP, and decreased NDF and ADF concentrations in silages. Therefore, for high yield of fresh fodder and DM yields, SM silage is recommended on huge levels. Finally, among all intercropped silages the 1M3S (1 row maize to 3 rows soybean) was preferable according to nutrient composition and nutritive values in silage.
Htet, M.N.S., Soomro, R.N. and Bo, H.J. (2017) Effects of Different Planting Pattern of Maize (Zea mays L.) and Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) Intercropping in Resource Consumption on Fodder Yield, and Silage Quality. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 8, 666-679. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2017.84046