# The Effect of Intercropping of Maize and Soybean on Microclimate

Hanming He, Lei Yang, Liming Fan, Lihua Zhao, Han Wu, Jing Yang, Chengyun Li

► To cite this version:

Hanming He, Lei Yang, Liming Fan, Lihua Zhao, Han Wu, et al.. The Effect of Intercropping of Maize and Soybean on Microclimate. 5th Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture (CCTA), Oct 2011, Beijing, China. pp.257-263, 10.1007/978-3-642-27278-3_27. hal-01360987

HAL Id: hal-01360987

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01360987

Submitted on 6 Sep 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The Effect of Intercropping of Maize and Soybean on Microclimate

Hanming He¹, Lei Yang¹, Liming Fan¹, Lihua Zhao¹, Han Wu¹, Jing Yang¹,
Chengyun Li¹*

¹ Key Lab. of the Ministry of Education for Agro-Biodiversity and Pest Control, Yunnan
Agricultural University, Yunnan, Kunming 650201, China
licheng_yun@163.com

**Abstract.** Intercropping induces the diseases decreasing, and yield increasing, may partly due to the improvement of microclimate in fields. In order to understand the mechanism and efficiency of resource utilization in intercropping of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max), a field experiment was conducted as factorial on the bases of randomized complete block design of three patterns with three replications. Three cropping patterns were maize monocropping (A), 2 rows maize and 2 rows soybean intercropping (C) and 2 rows maize and 4 rows soybean intercropping (D). Our studies showed that compared with monocropping, the temperature in intercropping was a little higher in the daytime, but in the nighttime, the contrary results were observed; the relative humidity in intercropping was lower in the daytime, but in the nighttime, the contrary results were observed; the light intensity in intercropping was markedly higher than that in monocropping. The yield components of maize in intercropping, including thousand kernel weight, yield per plant and leaf area were increased than that in monocropping. These results imply that microclimate variation of intercropping probably play important role to maize yield increasing.

**Keywords:** Intercropping, Temperature, Relative humidity, Light intensity, Biological characters
## Introduction

Compared with the monoculture, there may be more effectively utilize the temporal-spatial remainder of intercropping crops growth and development to bring into play the production potential of limited agricultural resources including radiation, fertilizer, water, gas and heat[1-3]. Therefore intercropping plays an important role in agricultural productions.

The microclimate including temperature, relative humidity (RH) and light intensity in farmland is an important factor in the growth and production of crops. Previous studies showed that the relative humidity, which played vital roles in disease injuries of crops, was found to present downtrend and reducing the number of hours per day with relative humidity ≥92% in intercropping[3-4]. And the intercropping can increase the amount of light intercepted of crops in unit planting area so that improve the crop dry matter production, yield and radiation use efficiency[5-10]. So we explore the microclimate change regulation in multi-culture patterns of maize and soybean and compared with monocropping so to discover the mechanism of intercropping.

## 1. Materials and methods

Field experiments were conducted at the farm of Yunnan Agricultural University, Yunnan province, China, 25° 01′ N, 103° E during 2009/05/06 to 2009/10/22. the crops used in the experiment were maize (Yunrui 88) and soybean (Nandou 12), and were sown by north-south rows at the same time. The experiments was made up of three cropping modes, one of which was maize monocropping (A, row distance 40cm), two of which were maize intercropping, viz., 2 maize rows (row distance 50cm) and 2 soybean rows (row distance 50cm) (2:2)- (C) which distance of maize to nearest soybean row is 50cm, and 2 maize rows (row distance 35cm) and 4 soybean rows (row distance 30cm) (2:4)- (D) which distance of maize to nearest soybean row is 40cm. Maize plant distance is 20cm and soybean plant distance is 30cm in all cropping patterns. Experiments repeated 3 times which using two-factor completely block design. Every unit area was 4.0cm ×5.0cm. Full irrigation and fertilizer were applied for every cropping system.

HOBO U12-012 data loggers were put beside maize plants and soybean plants to measure temperature ranged from -20℃ to 70℃, RH ranged from 5% to 95%, light
intensity ranged from 1 to 3000 footcandles (lumens/ft²). The light intensity beyond 3000 footcandles was recorded as the max value. But the light distributing difference between mono-cropping and intercropping focus mostly in the upper, middle and bottom part, and the light intensity is usually in the measurement range. The Li-6400 portable photosynthesis was used to measure the photosynthetic rate of maize leaves.

The temperature, RH and light intensity on the position between maize and soybean, above ground 30cm (below the head of soybean canopy) and 70cm (above the head of soybean canopy) of field were measured at maize heading stage in our experiment. The HOBO loggers recorded the data one time every 30 minutes and the average of that during a period was obtained as the daily changes of temperature, RH and light intensity.

## 2. Results and discussion

### 2.1 The difference of temperature and relative humidity beside maize plant at heading stage in the monocropping and intercropping

Fig.1-(a) and (b) indicated that the similar trend of the temperature beside maize plants above ground 30cm and 70cm between monocropping and intercropping was observed, viz., temperature in the daytime was higher than that in the nighttime. Wherever above ground 30cm or 70cm, in the daytime the temperature in intercropping was a little higher than that in monocropping, and the temperature in intercropping D was the most highest, followed by that in intercropping C and that in monocropping A. But in the night time, the contrary results were observed. The temperature in the nighttime in intercropping was a little lower than that in monocropping, and the temperature in intercropping D was the most lowest, followed by that in intercropping C and that in monocropping A. Fig.1-(c) and (d) also illustrated that similar daily change regulation of RH beside maize plants above ground 30cm and 70cm between monocropping and intercropping was also observed as the temperature, viz., the RH in daytime was lower than that in nighttime. Both above ground 30cm and 70cm, the RH in the daytime in monocropping A was the most highest, followed by that in intercropping D and that in intercropping C. But in the nighttime, the contrary results were observed. The RH in the nighttime above ground 30cm in intercropping D was the highest, followed by that in intercropping C and that in monocropping A. Above ground 70cm, the highest RH was found in
intercropping D, and the lower one was found in monocropping A and in intercropping C. The results indicated that the microclimate in field such as temperature and RH in the intercropping were improved compared with that in monocropping.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig.1.** Daily change of temperature and RH beside maize plants above ground 30cm and 70cm in monocropping and intercropping at heading stage</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2 the change of light intensity beside maize plants above the ground 30cm and 70cm in monocropping and intercropping at heading stage

Fig.2-(a) illustrated the light intensity during July 4th to July 19th, when the head of soybean canopy is below 30cm and the difference of light intensity was presented evident. Fig.2-(a) and (b) indicated that there were similar (parabolic curve) trends of daily light intensity above the ground 30 cm and 70cm beside maize plants in monocropping and intercropping. In other words, the maximum was found in the noon, while the minim was observed in the morning and evening in whatever cropping systems, which were consistent to the rules in meteorology. Moreover, light intensity in intercropping was significant higher than that in monocropping, especially with the increase of radiation angle.
Fig. 2-(a) indicated that above ground 30cm in monocropping only from 11:30 am to 13:30 pm, the light intensity was above the compensation points. But in intercropping (C and D), the light intensity from 8:30 am to 15:30 pm was always above the light compensation points. It was implied that the time length of light intensity above the compensation points was significantly longer (nearly 5 hours) than that in monocropping. Further more, the light intensity was over 400 footcandles in intercropping from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. Therefore, no matter in the time length and the intensity, effective radiation among the maize canopy above the ground 30cm in intercropping was markedly higher than that in monocropping during July 4th to July 19th. We conducted a Pearson correlation between daily average light intensity and the photosynthetic rate of 7th leaves (nearly on the position above ground 30cm) during July 20th to July 28th. The results showed that strong correlation (R²=0.92, P<0.001) can be observed in Fig.2-(c).

Fig.2-(b) indicated that above ground 70cm (beyond the head of soybean canopy) in monocropping, the light intensity was significant lower than the light compensation points, viz., the light intensity was below 100 footcandles. However, in intercropping C and D, the light intensity from 9 am to 5 pm (nearly 8 hours) was above the light compensation points, and from 9 am to 4 pm (7 hours) the light intensity was more than 200 footcandles. Maybe it becaused the canopy above the ground 70 cm in intercropping was not shadowed and can fully accept radiation. In Fig.2-(d) the linear correlation (R²=0.95, P<0.001) between the light intensity and the photosynthetic rate in ear leaves (nearly on the position above ground 70cm) was also observed in monocropping and intercropping.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>(c) Liner correlation between light intensity and photosynthetic rate of 7th leaves (nearly on the position above ground 30cm) in monocropping and intercropping at heading stage</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>(b) The daily light intensity change beside maize plant above ground 70cm in monocropping and intercropping from Aug 14th to Aug 24th</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>(d) Liner correlation between light intensity and photosynthetic rate of ear leaves (nearly on the position above ground 70cm) in monocropping and intercropping at heading stage</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig.2.** Daily light intensity change beside maize plants above ground 30cm and 70cm and the relationship between light intensity and photosynthetic rate in monocropping and intercropping at heading stage</figcaption></figure>

**2.3 Comparing biological characters of maize in monocropping and intercropping**

It was easy from above results to see that compared with monocropping, the improvement of microclimate of fields in intercropping cause the raise of the photosynthetic rate of maize's leaves, which could result the improvement of the biological characters of maize.

Table 1 indicated that maize's yield characters in intercropping, including thousand kernel weight, yield per plant and area of ear leaves are all greater than that in monocropping, in which the thousand kernel weight showed D>C>A, yield per plant showed C>D>A, the area of ear leaves showed C>D>A. Accordingly, from the trial results it was seen that the biological characters of maize in intercropping were better than that in monocropping.

<caption>**Table 1.** Biological characters of maize in monocropping and intercropping</caption>
<table><thead><tr><th>Biological<br>characters<br>Pattern</th><th>Thousand<br>kernel weight<br>(g)</th><th>Yield per<br>plant (g)</th><th>Leaf area(cm²)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Monocropping</td><td>323.8</td><td>120.8</td><td>626.0</td></tr><tr><td>Intercropping 2:2</td><td>339.2</td><td>167.2</td><td>877.3</td></tr><tr><td>Intercropping 2:4</td><td>344.9</td><td>160.7</td><td>666.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3. Conclusions

Intercropping leads to variation of microclimate, especially for light intensity, RH and temperature. Maize and soybean are staple crops in the world, intercropping of the crops have long history in Asian countries, mainly for increasing the yield and nourishing the soil. However, mechanisms and efficiency of intercropping is unclear. It will be the limitation for improving intercropping system. In this study, microclimate of maize field including temperature, RH and light intensity in monocropping and intercropping were continuously investigated by using Multi-channel Data Logger (Hobo H8) analyzed and compared. The results show that the microclimate was improved significantly.

Firstly, wherever above the ground 30cm or 70cm, in the daytime the temperature in intercropping was a little higher than that in monocropping, but in the night time, the contrary results were observed. Both above the ground 30cm and 70cm, the RH in the daytime in monocropping was higher than that in intercropping, but in the nighttime, the contrary results were observed.

Secondly, from the daily change, no matter in the time length and the intensity, effective radiation among maize plants above the ground 30cm and 70cm in intercropping was markedly higher than that in monocropping. Moreover, a remarkably linear correlation between daily average light intensity and the photosynthetic rate of leaves was observed.

Finally, the yield components of maize in intercropping, including thousand kernel weight, yield per plant and leaf area were increased than that in monocropping.

In summary, our results showed microclimate variation, including increasing the radiation duration and light intensity at different height position in intercropping field significantly, and remarkable correlation between light
intensity and photosynthetic rate implied the variation of light intensity play
important role for improving the yield component of maize. However,
intercropping is a very complex system, biological variation of maize plants play
roles for increasing the yield as well. To determine the better combination and
more efficiency of resource utilization in intercropping, it is need to understand
the biological, physical, chemical and microclimate effectors and their interaction.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Project supported by the National Basic Research Program (2011CB100400).

References

1. Zhu Youyong, Chen Hairu, Fan Jinghua, et al. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice [J]. J. Nature, 406, 718~722 (2000)

2. Li Chengyun, He Xiahong, Zhu Shusheng, et al. Crop Diversity for Yield Increase [J]. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4(11), e8049~8057.

3. Zhu Youyong, Li Chengyun, et al. Genetic Diversity for Crops Diseases Sustainable Management [M]. Beijing, Science Publisher, 2007.

4. Gómez-Rodríguez O., Zavaleta-Mejía E., et al. Allelopathy and microclimatic modification of intercropping with marigold on tomato early blight disease development [J]. Field Crops Research, 2003, 83(1): 27~34.

5. Monteith, J.L. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain [J]. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., London, 1997, 281:277~294.

6. Sivakumar M. V. K., Virmani S. M. Crop productivity in relation to interception of photosynthetically active radiation [J]. Agric. For. Meteorol., 1984, 31: 131~141.

7. Jahansooz MR., Yunusa IAM., Coventry DR., Palmer AR., Eamus D. Radiation- and water-use associated with growth and yields of wheat and chickpea in sole and mixed crops [J]. Eur J Agron, 2007, 26:275~282.

8. Tsubo M., Walker S., Mukhala E. Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono-/intercropping with different row orientations [J]. Field Crops Res, 2001, 71:17~29.

9. Zhang L., van der Werf W., Bastiaans L., Zhang S., Li B., Spiertz J.H.J. Light interception
and utilization in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton [J]. Field Crops Research, 2008, 107:29~42.

10. Tsubo, M., Walker, S. A model of radiation interception and use by a maize-bean intercrop canopy [J]. Agric. Forest Meteorol, 2002, 200:203~215.