# Chemical Regulation Effect of Water Use Efficiency of Maize Intercropping

Authors: Hongwei Chen; Ling Huang
Journal: Journal of Chemistry
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

In order to solve the practical problems of large water demand and shortage of water resources in traditional wheat/maize intercropping, a planting method of changing stubble retention method is proposed in this paper. This method was used to study the effects of three stubble retention methods of traditional wheat straw incineration, straw return, and straw stubble on grain yield, water use efficiency (WUE), and economic benefits of wheat/maize intercropping. The results showed that, compared with the grain yield of burning and returning, the single cropping of wheat increased by 7.2% and 5.1%, the intercropping of wheat increased by 6.2% and 5.1%, the single cropping of corn increased by 4.7% and 2.5%, and the intercropping of corn increased by 7.2% and 3.3%, respectively; compared with the burned and returned WUE, wheat monoculture increased by 20.4% and 16.2%, respectively, wheat intercropping increased by 17.9% and 14.6%, respectively, corn monoculture increased by 16.7% and 10.9%, respectively, and corn intercropping increased by 11.8% and 17.0%, respectively. In terms of the average value of monoculture wheat, monoculture corn, and wheat/corn, the net benefits of incineration, turning, and stubble treatment are 10946, 11471, and 13454 yuan • hm−2, respectively. Considering the grain yield, water use efficiency, and net income, the standing stubble planting mode is the best planting mode of wheat/maize in this area.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

With the rapid development of China’s economy, resource consumption is becoming more and more serious, the available land area and freshwater resources are decreasing, the cultivated land area is insufficient, and the temporal and spatial distribution of water resources is uneven. Therefore, how to make rational use of limited cultivated land and freshwater resources has become the focus of attention. Intercropping has the characteristics of making full use of resources and greatly increasing yield. At present, it has important practical significance to solve the contradiction between continuous population growth and continuous reduction of cultivated land [1].China is a country with a large population. Food has always been the focus of China’s attention. Water resources are a necessary condition for crop growth. Different spatial layout has a certain impact on crop canopy structure [2]. The canopy leaf area index decreased with the increase of row spacing. The canopy opening increases with the increase of row spacing: the row spacing configuration can also change the wheat canopy microenvironment, and the light interception and extinction coefficients at different levels of the canopy decrease with the increase of row spacing. Figure 1 shows a special corn chemical herbicide [3]. Different spatial layout has an impact on the resource utilization of intercropping. The planting modes with different field spacing have different conditions such as group ventilation and light transmission. The degree of competition and complementarity is different, and the utilization of space and nutrients is different, so the yield increase and value-added effect are also different [4]. A reasonable intercropping structure can not only reduce the competition between the two crops and make effective use of land resources but also make the group make full use of natural climate and other conditions, improve the utilization rate of light energy, and obtain better economic benefits [5, 6].Figure 1
Atrazine, a special chemical weeding for corn.This paper analyzes the change law of water use efficiency in different spatial layouts and carries out a quantitative analysis of the relative interspecific competitiveness of the two crops, so as to explore how to change the aboveground spatial structure of corn/wheat composite population, reasonably coordinate the competition and complementarity of the two crops, realize the efficient utilization of water and fertilizer resources, and provide experimental and theoretical support for improving the economic and ecological benefits of corn/wheat planting mode in Hexi oasis irrigation area.


## 2. Literature Review

Intercropping refers to the way that two or more crops with similar growth seasons are planted in rows or strips (multiple rows) on the same field. Interplanting refers to the planting method of planting crops between plants and rows in the late growth stage of previous crops or transplanting postseason crops [7]. The planting method of intercropping has a long history. As early as the 1st century BC, China has recorded the intercropping of melons and beans in the book of Pan Sheng in the Western Han Dynasty [8]. Qi min yao shu in the 6th century described the experience of intercropping mulberry with mung beans, as well as intercropping adzuki beans and shallots with coriander [9]. After the Ming Dynasty, wheat intercropping, soybean intercropping, cotton intercropping, and potato intercropping have been more common, and the intercropping of other crops has also been developed [10]. Since the 1960s, the intercropping area has expanded rapidly, including intercropping of high and low stem crops and intercropping of different crop types, such as intercropping of grain crops and cash crops, green manure crops, and feed crops. In particular, corn/bean crops are the most common and widely distributed in the northeast, north China, northwest, and southwest. In addition, there are corn/peanut intercropping, wheat/broad bean intercropping, sugarcane/peanut, sugarcane/soybean intercropping, sorghum/millet, and so forth [11]. In forest grain intercropping, mulberry, fruit tree, or Paulownia are more intercropped with annual crops [12]. In India and many African countries, intercropping of beans, corn, sorghum, millet, and cassava is also common [13].China is one of the countries with serious shortage of water resources in the world, and the geographical distribution of water and soil resources is extremely uneven, with more in the south and less in the north, as well as more in the east and less in the west. The per capita share of water resources in most areas is far lower than the warning line of serious water shortage. The most serious problem of water shortage is in north China and northwest China. Due to the shortage of water resources, the contradiction between industrial and agricultural production and domestic water of urban residents and the ecological environment is becoming more and more serious in some areas. The phenomenon of river cutoff also occurs from time to time, the groundwater level is also declining, and the ecological environment is deteriorating day by day. Water conservation and water-saving technology began to be paid more and more attention [14, 15].From the 1970s, the research and application of water-saving agricultural technology began to receive attention in northern China [16]. Since the 1980s, water-saving technology has been widely studied and applied in engineering, facility agriculture, crop cultivation, and other fields, with outstanding research results. It also provides effective technical support for efficient water use and water conservation in farmland at the micro level. However, in comparison, the research results on the optimization of agricultural water use structure and water resources management are not very significant [17, 18]. The technological development in this field is relatively lagging behind. At the macro level, efficient water use and water-saving technologies are still generally insufficient.At present, Chinese scholars’ research on water-saving technology of intercropping mainly focuses on multicropping and irrigation technology. Zhao et al. found that wheat/maize is the main planting mode in Hexi and northwest oasis irrigation areas of Gansu Province. When the irrigation quota of wheat and maize is 6750 m3/hm2, the yield can reach 15000 kg/hm2 [19]. Rolls used micro ridge and furrow irrigation technology. When the irrigation amount of wheat intercropping maize was 6000 m3/hm2, the yield reached 12800 kg/hm2, which was 23.79% higher than that of flat cropping [20]. Kaabar et al. proposed that when the traditional flood irrigation is adopted, the irrigation amount of the “belt field” along the Hexi Desert with the highest water use efficiency is 8775 m3/hm2 [21]. These studies provide a strong basis for systematically studying the water consumption characteristics of intercropping system and developing water-saving irrigation technology [22].Based on the current research, this paper arranges experiments in a certain area, studies the effects of different stubble retention methods on crop yield and WUE under the wheat maize intercropping mode, puts forward the stubble retention planting mode suitable for this area, further improves the water-saving and protective farming system in the oasis irrigation area, reduces the pollution and resource waste caused by straw incineration, and promotes the recycling of resources in this area, so as to provide a theoretical basis for the development of circular agriculture in this area.


## 3. Research Methods

### 3.1. Overview of the Study Area

The test was conducted at a local test station. The area relies on river water and groundwater for irrigation. The groundwater level is below 65 m. The terrain is flat. It has a temperate continental arid climate with sufficient sunshine, abundant heat, and dry climate. It is windy and sandy in spring with dry and hot wind in summer. The average altitude is 1776 m, the average annual precipitation is 160 mm, and the interannual and seasonal changes of precipitation are large. It is dry in winter and spring, the annual evaporation is 2021 mm, the average annual temperature is 7.7°C, ≥10°C, the annual accumulated temperature is 2985.4°C, the annual frost-free period is 156 d, the total solar radiation is 140–158 kj • cm−2, and the annual sunshine hours are 3051 h. The soil is mainly irrigated and silted soil in northwest inland irrigation area, with silty loam and deep soil layer. The basic physical and chemical properties of the soil in the test area are shown in Table 1.Table 1
Physical and chemical characteristics of soil in the test area.
Soil layer (cm)Unit weight (g·cm−3)Field capacity (%)Total nitrogen (g·kg−1)Total phosphorus (g·kg−1)Total potassium (g·kg−1)Available phosphorus (mg·kg−1)Available potassium (mg·kg−1)Organic matter (g·kg−1)pH0∼201.4721.500.950.405.738.14125.8011.498.6620∼401.4918.250.720.376.717.35112.849.588.76


### 3.2. Test Design

The first crop in this experiment is spring wheat, which is harvested with high stubble. The stubble height is 30 cm (stubble biomass is 3847 kg • hm−2). No tillage is carried out after harvest, and the stubble is treated before planting [23]. The experiment adopts split zone design. The stubble treatment is the main area and the planting mode is the subarea. There are three kinds of stubble treatment. The stubble treatment is standing stubble (s, no overwhelming measures are taken for the wheat stubble; crops are directly sown between the wheat stubble rows), incineration (b, tillage after stubble incineration), and return (R, turning the stubble back to the field with rotary cultivator). There are three planting modes: monoculture wheat, monoculture corn, and wheat/corn intercropping. There are nine treatments and three repetitions. The plot area is 28.2 m2 (6.0 m × 4.7 m). A 1 m corridor is set between each plot. Manage crops according to local fertilization, irrigation management experience, and crop growth characteristics [24]. Due to the large soil porosity and deep disturbance layer in the return and incineration treatment, the irrigation amount is slightly higher than that in the stubble treatment. The irrigation amount in the wheat growth period of the return, incineration, and stubble treatment is 300, 300, and 270 mm, respectively, and the corn growth period is 390, 390, and 360 mm, respectively. The rainfall during the growth period of wheat and maize is 58.8 mm and 117.9 mm, respectively. The fertilization time of different planting modes is different, but the total fertilization amount is the same [25].The sowing time of wheat is March 24, and the variety is Yongliang No. 4. It is flat planting, the sowing density is 375 kg • hm−2, planted in branches, and the row spacing is 12 cm. The sowing time of maize is April 20. The variety is Wuke No. 2. It is flat planting, with a sowing density of 82500 plants • hm−2, a row spacing of 39 cm, and plant spacing of 24 cm. The sowing time and density of spring wheat and maize in wheat/maize intercropping system are the same as those in monoculture. The wheat belt width is 72 cm, the species are 6 rows, the row spacing is 12 cm, the maize belt width is 78 cm, the species are 2 rows, the row spacing is 39 cm, and the plant spacing is 24 cm. The wheat belt accounts for 48% and the maize belt accounts for 52%. All treatments were applied with 112.5 kg • hm−2 pure P (calcium superphosphate, containing P2O5, 46%) and pure K (potassium sulfate, containing K2SO4, 50%). The amount of nitrogen applied during the growth period of spring wheat and spring maize was 225 kg • hm−2, of which 112.5 kg • hm−2 was the base fertilizer. The wheat was applied with 112.5 kg • hm−2 after the first irrigation at the tillering stage, and the maize was applied with 56.25 kg • hm−2 before irrigation at the jointing stage and the big bell mouth stage. The harvest dates of wheat and corn are July 24 and October 5, respectively.


### 3.3. Determination Items and Methods

During the emergence period of wheat and maize, the soil temperature was measured regularly with a geothermometer at a depth of 25 cm, stratified by 5 cm, and measured at 8:00, 14:00, and 18:00. The soil mass water content of 0–150 cm soil layer was measured by drying method. It was stratified by 20 cm, and the last layer was 30 cm. The measurement dates were May 4, May 30, June 12, August 24, and 1 day before and 1 day after wheat and corn sowing. Samples were taken from wheat belt and corn belt, respectively, and the soil water storage in each period was calculated according to the soil mass water content. The dry matter of wheat and maize plants is determined on May 11, May 28, June 15, July 2, July 24, August 3, and October 5, respectively. 15 plants from each plot of wheat and 5 plants from each plot of maize are taken, and the relative growth rate (RGR) is calculated as shown in the following formula:(1)RGR=lnWt1−lnWt2t2−t1,where Wt1 is the dry matter mass at time t1 and Wt2 is the dry matter mass at time t2. When harvesting, the economic output is calculated according to the plot after removing the side row, and the economic benefit is calculated according to the input-output.Crop water use efficiency (WUE) is shown in the following formula:(2)WUE=YET,where Y is the grain yield and ET is the water consumption during the whole growth period of crops.(3)ET=I+P−R0−DP+CR±ΔSF±ΔSW,where I is the amount of irrigation, which is measured by water meter; P is the precipitation, provided by the local meteorological bureau; R0 is surface runoff; DP is the displacement of the lower boundary; CR is the amount of water in the shallow groundwater level transported upward through the capillary; ΔSF is the horizontal movement of water in the root zone; ΔSW is the change of soil water storage:Soil water storageW (mm) = soil volume water content ∗ ∗soil layer thickness (mm)Soil volume moisture content (%) = soil mass moisture content ∗∗soil bulk densitySoil mass moisture content (%) = [(wet soil mass + box mass) − (dry soil mass + box mass)]/dry soil mass ∗∗100%R0 and ΔSF of flat land can be 0. The groundwater in the test area is deeply buried, and its recharge is generally negligible, CR=0; ΔSW is calculated according to the soil water content during crop sowing and harvest; the lower boundary drainage is not detected in the test; DP=0.


### 3.4. Data Processing

SAS8.1 and Excel software were used for analysis of variance and significance testα=0.05. The difference between single tailed test repetitions was significant, and the difference between treatments was significant by the new complex difference method.


## 3.1. Overview of the Study Area

The test was conducted at a local test station. The area relies on river water and groundwater for irrigation. The groundwater level is below 65 m. The terrain is flat. It has a temperate continental arid climate with sufficient sunshine, abundant heat, and dry climate. It is windy and sandy in spring with dry and hot wind in summer. The average altitude is 1776 m, the average annual precipitation is 160 mm, and the interannual and seasonal changes of precipitation are large. It is dry in winter and spring, the annual evaporation is 2021 mm, the average annual temperature is 7.7°C, ≥10°C, the annual accumulated temperature is 2985.4°C, the annual frost-free period is 156 d, the total solar radiation is 140–158 kj • cm−2, and the annual sunshine hours are 3051 h. The soil is mainly irrigated and silted soil in northwest inland irrigation area, with silty loam and deep soil layer. The basic physical and chemical properties of the soil in the test area are shown in Table 1.Table 1
Physical and chemical characteristics of soil in the test area.
Soil layer (cm)Unit weight (g·cm−3)Field capacity (%)Total nitrogen (g·kg−1)Total phosphorus (g·kg−1)Total potassium (g·kg−1)Available phosphorus (mg·kg−1)Available potassium (mg·kg−1)Organic matter (g·kg−1)pH0∼201.4721.500.950.405.738.14125.8011.498.6620∼401.4918.250.720.376.717.35112.849.588.76


## 3.2. Test Design

The first crop in this experiment is spring wheat, which is harvested with high stubble. The stubble height is 30 cm (stubble biomass is 3847 kg • hm−2). No tillage is carried out after harvest, and the stubble is treated before planting [23]. The experiment adopts split zone design. The stubble treatment is the main area and the planting mode is the subarea. There are three kinds of stubble treatment. The stubble treatment is standing stubble (s, no overwhelming measures are taken for the wheat stubble; crops are directly sown between the wheat stubble rows), incineration (b, tillage after stubble incineration), and return (R, turning the stubble back to the field with rotary cultivator). There are three planting modes: monoculture wheat, monoculture corn, and wheat/corn intercropping. There are nine treatments and three repetitions. The plot area is 28.2 m2 (6.0 m × 4.7 m). A 1 m corridor is set between each plot. Manage crops according to local fertilization, irrigation management experience, and crop growth characteristics [24]. Due to the large soil porosity and deep disturbance layer in the return and incineration treatment, the irrigation amount is slightly higher than that in the stubble treatment. The irrigation amount in the wheat growth period of the return, incineration, and stubble treatment is 300, 300, and 270 mm, respectively, and the corn growth period is 390, 390, and 360 mm, respectively. The rainfall during the growth period of wheat and maize is 58.8 mm and 117.9 mm, respectively. The fertilization time of different planting modes is different, but the total fertilization amount is the same [25].The sowing time of wheat is March 24, and the variety is Yongliang No. 4. It is flat planting, the sowing density is 375 kg • hm−2, planted in branches, and the row spacing is 12 cm. The sowing time of maize is April 20. The variety is Wuke No. 2. It is flat planting, with a sowing density of 82500 plants • hm−2, a row spacing of 39 cm, and plant spacing of 24 cm. The sowing time and density of spring wheat and maize in wheat/maize intercropping system are the same as those in monoculture. The wheat belt width is 72 cm, the species are 6 rows, the row spacing is 12 cm, the maize belt width is 78 cm, the species are 2 rows, the row spacing is 39 cm, and the plant spacing is 24 cm. The wheat belt accounts for 48% and the maize belt accounts for 52%. All treatments were applied with 112.5 kg • hm−2 pure P (calcium superphosphate, containing P2O5, 46%) and pure K (potassium sulfate, containing K2SO4, 50%). The amount of nitrogen applied during the growth period of spring wheat and spring maize was 225 kg • hm−2, of which 112.5 kg • hm−2 was the base fertilizer. The wheat was applied with 112.5 kg • hm−2 after the first irrigation at the tillering stage, and the maize was applied with 56.25 kg • hm−2 before irrigation at the jointing stage and the big bell mouth stage. The harvest dates of wheat and corn are July 24 and October 5, respectively.


## 3.3. Determination Items and Methods

During the emergence period of wheat and maize, the soil temperature was measured regularly with a geothermometer at a depth of 25 cm, stratified by 5 cm, and measured at 8:00, 14:00, and 18:00. The soil mass water content of 0–150 cm soil layer was measured by drying method. It was stratified by 20 cm, and the last layer was 30 cm. The measurement dates were May 4, May 30, June 12, August 24, and 1 day before and 1 day after wheat and corn sowing. Samples were taken from wheat belt and corn belt, respectively, and the soil water storage in each period was calculated according to the soil mass water content. The dry matter of wheat and maize plants is determined on May 11, May 28, June 15, July 2, July 24, August 3, and October 5, respectively. 15 plants from each plot of wheat and 5 plants from each plot of maize are taken, and the relative growth rate (RGR) is calculated as shown in the following formula:(1)RGR=lnWt1−lnWt2t2−t1,where Wt1 is the dry matter mass at time t1 and Wt2 is the dry matter mass at time t2. When harvesting, the economic output is calculated according to the plot after removing the side row, and the economic benefit is calculated according to the input-output.Crop water use efficiency (WUE) is shown in the following formula:(2)WUE=YET,where Y is the grain yield and ET is the water consumption during the whole growth period of crops.(3)ET=I+P−R0−DP+CR±ΔSF±ΔSW,where I is the amount of irrigation, which is measured by water meter; P is the precipitation, provided by the local meteorological bureau; R0 is surface runoff; DP is the displacement of the lower boundary; CR is the amount of water in the shallow groundwater level transported upward through the capillary; ΔSF is the horizontal movement of water in the root zone; ΔSW is the change of soil water storage:Soil water storageW (mm) = soil volume water content ∗ ∗soil layer thickness (mm)Soil volume moisture content (%) = soil mass moisture content ∗∗soil bulk densitySoil mass moisture content (%) = [(wet soil mass + box mass) − (dry soil mass + box mass)]/dry soil mass ∗∗100%R0 and ΔSF of flat land can be 0. The groundwater in the test area is deeply buried, and its recharge is generally negligible, CR=0; ΔSW is calculated according to the soil water content during crop sowing and harvest; the lower boundary drainage is not detected in the test; DP=0.


## 3.4. Data Processing

SAS8.1 and Excel software were used for analysis of variance and significance testα=0.05. The difference between single tailed test repetitions was significant, and the difference between treatments was significant by the new complex difference method.


## 4. Result Analysis

### 4.1. Effects of Stubble Retention Methods on Soil Temperature, Crop Emergence Rate, and Emergence Period

It can be seen from Table2 that, under the intercropping mode, the soil temperature of wheat and maize at the seedling emergence stage is significantly lower than that of incineration and return treatment, which is reduced by 0.5 and 0.4°C in wheat and by 1.0 and 0.6°C in maize, respectively. There is no significant difference between incineration and return treatments (the laws of monoculture and intercropping are similar, which is not listed in the paper). The number of seedlings per unit area of wheat stubble treatment was significantly lower than that of incineration and turning, and there was no significant difference between turning and burning. Although the emergence rate of maize stubble treatment decreased slightly, there was no significant difference among treatments. The emergence period of wheat stubble was 3 and 5 days later than that of turning and burning, and that of corn was 6 and 5 days later. The main reason for the low emergence rate of wheat is that the soil bulk density of no tillage planting is larger, the compactness is significantly higher than that of turning and incineration, and stubble will also hinder the contact between seeds and soil. Corn is a sparsely planted crop, so straw has little impact on its emergence rate, mainly reflected in the delay of seedling stage. On the one hand, the undisturbed compactness of surface soil is high, which affects the growth of seedlings. On the other hand, stubble reduces the solar radiation reaching the ground, the soil moisture content is high, and the recovery of ground temperature is slower than incineration and turning.Table 2
Effects of stubble retention methods on emergence number, emergence period, and soil temperature of intercropping wheat and maize.
CropsStubble retention methodSoil temperature (°C)Emergence number (plant·m−2)Emergence timeWheatB10.3724a04–10R10.4716a04–12S9.9708b04–15CornB11.18.13a05–20R11.58.13a05–21S10.58.12a05–26


### 4.2. Effect of Stubble Retention on Soil Water Storage

During crop growth, there was no significant difference in soil water storage between different stubble retention methods in early May. From the end of May, the soil water storage of standing stubble treatment was significantly higher than that of returning and incineration treatment, with an average of 9.2% and 12.8% higher than that of returning and incineration treatment in the whole growth period (as shown in Table3), while the returning treatment was significantly higher than that of incineration treatment only on June 12, and there was no significant difference in other growth periods. Although the irrigation amount of standing stubble treatment is slightly lower than that of the other two treatments, because standing stubble reduces solar radiation and water exchange between soil and atmosphere, the loss of soil water evaporation is reduced, so that standing stubble treatment has relatively high soil water storage. The difference in the early stage is small, mainly because the stubble before this experiment is wheat with high stubble (30 cm), and each treatment is carried out before wheat sowing. Therefore, the difference of soil water storage on May 4 is not significant.Table 3
Effects of stubble retention methods on soil water storage in different growth periods.
TreatmentDate05-0405–3006–1207–2408–2410-05B346320346228342310R354356352250346334S372410378274398362


### 4.3. Effect of Stubble Retention Methods on Relative Growth Rate of Crops

It can be seen from Table4 that, in wheat monoculture planting, the relative growth rate of stubble treatment in middle and late May is lower than that of stubble returning and incineration treatment. From the end of May to the middle of June, it shows stubble returning > incineration, and then each treatment rises alternately. The relative growth rate of stubble treatment was lower before the middle of June and higher than that of turning and incineration treatment after the middle of June. In wheat/maize, from the middle of May to the middle of June, the relative growth rate of standing stubble treatment was lower than that of returning and incineration. From the middle of June to early July and after early August, the relative growth rate of standing stubble treatment was higher than that of returning and incineration. The reason for the inconsistency between single and intercropping treatment is that the crop growth of intercropping treatment is affected by both crops. The main reason for the low relative growth rate of crops in the early growth stage of stubble treatment is that stubble treatment absorbs less light radiation and less water loss, so the soil temperature is low. After the temperature rises in the middle and late stage, it will no longer become the main factor restricting crop growth.Table 4
Effects of stubble retention methods on relative growth rate of crops.
TreatmentStubble retention methodDetermination period05.11–05.2805.28–06.1506.15–07.0207.02–07.2407.24–08.0308.03–10.05Monoculture wheatB0.0360.0560.0130.009R0.0350.0590.0070.011S0.0320.0650.0090.011Monoculture cornB0.1080.0550.0190.0230.014R0.1030.0760.0220.0140.014S0.1000.0830.0210.0200.015Wheat/cornB0.0230.0840.0240.0340.0710.014R0.0180.0770.0420.0230.0820.015S0.0060.0740.0510.0240.0960.015


### 4.4. Effects of Stubble Retention and Planting Mode on Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency

In wheat monoculture, the grain yield of standing stubble treatment increased by 7.2% and 5.1%, respectively, compared with incineration and return treatment (as shown in Table5). In wheat intercropping, the grain yield of standing stubble treatment increased by 6.2% and 5.1%, respectively, compared with incineration and return treatment, but there was no significant difference in wheat seed yield among different stubble retention methods.Table 5
Effects of stubble retention and planting patterns on crop yield and water use efficiency.
Planting methodStubble retention methodGrain yield (kg·hm−2)Biological yield (kg·hm−2)Economic coefficientCrop water consumption (mm)Water use efficiency (kg·hm−2·mm−1)WheatCornWheatCornWheatCornWheatCornWheatCornMonocultureB6490a11590a19091a22251b0.33b0.52a511a621a12.9b18.7bR6621a11840a17713b25238a0.37a0.47b491a603a13.3b19.6bS6956a12136a18762a25544a0.37a0.48b449b557b15.5a21.8aIntercroppingB8052a13146b19221a21221b0.42a0.62a490a562a16.5b23.4bR8142a13642ab19904a24461a0.41a0.56b481a557a16.9b24.5bS8553a14098a19768a24744a0.43a0.57b441b515b19.4a27.4aThe water consumption of crop under various planting modes is different (wheat monoculture, wheat intercropping, corn monoculture, and corn intercropping). Compared with different stubble retention methods, standing stubble treatment was significantly lower than turning and incineration treatment. Wheat monoculture decreased by 8.6% and 12.1%, respectively, wheat intercropping decreased by 8.3% and 10.0%, respectively, corn monoculture decreased by 7.6% and 10.3%, respectively, and corn intercropping decreased by 7.6% and 8.6%, respectively. In wheat monoculture, the WUE of standing stubble treatment was significantly higher than that of incineration and turnover treatment, and there was no significant difference between incineration and turnover treatments. The WUE of standing stubble treatment increased by 20.4% and 16.2%, respectively. In wheat intercropping, WUE of standing stubble treatment increased by 17.9% and 14.6%, respectively, compared with incineration and turnover treatment.


### 4.5. Impact of Stubble Retention and Planting Mode on Crop Economic Benefits

The analysis of input and output benefits of different stubble and planting modes (Figure2) shows that, in wheat monoculture, the net benefits of turning back and burning and standing stubble treatment are 5960, 5698, and 7815 yuan • hm−2, respectively, and the income of standing stubble is 31.1% and 37.2% higher than that of turning back and burning, respectively; in maize monoculture planting, the net incomes of returning, burning, and stubble treatment were 10686, 10260, and 12373 yuan • hm−2, respectively, and the income of stubble treatment was 15.8% and 20.5% higher than that of returning and burning, respectively; in wheat/maize intercropping, the net income of returning, burning, and stubble was 11471, 10946, and 13454 yuan • hm−2, respectively, and the income of returning and stubble was 17.3% and 22.9% higher than that of burning, respectively. Under the three planting modes, stubble treatment has the highest economic benefit, followed by turning and incineration treatment, which is mainly due to the fact that stubble treatment eliminates the procedures of soil rotation before sowing, land preparation, and middle tillage, and has better effects of water storage and moisture conservation, and the grain yield is also higher than the other two treatments, which finally makes the economic yield significantly higher than turning and incineration treatment. Under the stubble treatment, the yield gain of wheat or maize intercropping was 6761 yuan higher than that of wheat monoculture, and the difference was small compared with that of maize monoculture. Compared with wheat monoculture and maize monoculture; the economic benefit increased by 5639 yuan hm–2 and 1081 yuan hm–2, respectively.Figure 2
Effects of stubble retention and planting mode on crop economic benefits.


## 4.1. Effects of Stubble Retention Methods on Soil Temperature, Crop Emergence Rate, and Emergence Period

It can be seen from Table2 that, under the intercropping mode, the soil temperature of wheat and maize at the seedling emergence stage is significantly lower than that of incineration and return treatment, which is reduced by 0.5 and 0.4°C in wheat and by 1.0 and 0.6°C in maize, respectively. There is no significant difference between incineration and return treatments (the laws of monoculture and intercropping are similar, which is not listed in the paper). The number of seedlings per unit area of wheat stubble treatment was significantly lower than that of incineration and turning, and there was no significant difference between turning and burning. Although the emergence rate of maize stubble treatment decreased slightly, there was no significant difference among treatments. The emergence period of wheat stubble was 3 and 5 days later than that of turning and burning, and that of corn was 6 and 5 days later. The main reason for the low emergence rate of wheat is that the soil bulk density of no tillage planting is larger, the compactness is significantly higher than that of turning and incineration, and stubble will also hinder the contact between seeds and soil. Corn is a sparsely planted crop, so straw has little impact on its emergence rate, mainly reflected in the delay of seedling stage. On the one hand, the undisturbed compactness of surface soil is high, which affects the growth of seedlings. On the other hand, stubble reduces the solar radiation reaching the ground, the soil moisture content is high, and the recovery of ground temperature is slower than incineration and turning.Table 2
Effects of stubble retention methods on emergence number, emergence period, and soil temperature of intercropping wheat and maize.
CropsStubble retention methodSoil temperature (°C)Emergence number (plant·m−2)Emergence timeWheatB10.3724a04–10R10.4716a04–12S9.9708b04–15CornB11.18.13a05–20R11.58.13a05–21S10.58.12a05–26


## 4.2. Effect of Stubble Retention on Soil Water Storage

During crop growth, there was no significant difference in soil water storage between different stubble retention methods in early May. From the end of May, the soil water storage of standing stubble treatment was significantly higher than that of returning and incineration treatment, with an average of 9.2% and 12.8% higher than that of returning and incineration treatment in the whole growth period (as shown in Table3), while the returning treatment was significantly higher than that of incineration treatment only on June 12, and there was no significant difference in other growth periods. Although the irrigation amount of standing stubble treatment is slightly lower than that of the other two treatments, because standing stubble reduces solar radiation and water exchange between soil and atmosphere, the loss of soil water evaporation is reduced, so that standing stubble treatment has relatively high soil water storage. The difference in the early stage is small, mainly because the stubble before this experiment is wheat with high stubble (30 cm), and each treatment is carried out before wheat sowing. Therefore, the difference of soil water storage on May 4 is not significant.Table 3
Effects of stubble retention methods on soil water storage in different growth periods.
TreatmentDate05-0405–3006–1207–2408–2410-05B346320346228342310R354356352250346334S372410378274398362


## 4.3. Effect of Stubble Retention Methods on Relative Growth Rate of Crops

It can be seen from Table4 that, in wheat monoculture planting, the relative growth rate of stubble treatment in middle and late May is lower than that of stubble returning and incineration treatment. From the end of May to the middle of June, it shows stubble returning > incineration, and then each treatment rises alternately. The relative growth rate of stubble treatment was lower before the middle of June and higher than that of turning and incineration treatment after the middle of June. In wheat/maize, from the middle of May to the middle of June, the relative growth rate of standing stubble treatment was lower than that of returning and incineration. From the middle of June to early July and after early August, the relative growth rate of standing stubble treatment was higher than that of returning and incineration. The reason for the inconsistency between single and intercropping treatment is that the crop growth of intercropping treatment is affected by both crops. The main reason for the low relative growth rate of crops in the early growth stage of stubble treatment is that stubble treatment absorbs less light radiation and less water loss, so the soil temperature is low. After the temperature rises in the middle and late stage, it will no longer become the main factor restricting crop growth.Table 4
Effects of stubble retention methods on relative growth rate of crops.
TreatmentStubble retention methodDetermination period05.11–05.2805.28–06.1506.15–07.0207.02–07.2407.24–08.0308.03–10.05Monoculture wheatB0.0360.0560.0130.009R0.0350.0590.0070.011S0.0320.0650.0090.011Monoculture cornB0.1080.0550.0190.0230.014R0.1030.0760.0220.0140.014S0.1000.0830.0210.0200.015Wheat/cornB0.0230.0840.0240.0340.0710.014R0.0180.0770.0420.0230.0820.015S0.0060.0740.0510.0240.0960.015


## 4.4. Effects of Stubble Retention and Planting Mode on Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency

In wheat monoculture, the grain yield of standing stubble treatment increased by 7.2% and 5.1%, respectively, compared with incineration and return treatment (as shown in Table5). In wheat intercropping, the grain yield of standing stubble treatment increased by 6.2% and 5.1%, respectively, compared with incineration and return treatment, but there was no significant difference in wheat seed yield among different stubble retention methods.Table 5
Effects of stubble retention and planting patterns on crop yield and water use efficiency.
Planting methodStubble retention methodGrain yield (kg·hm−2)Biological yield (kg·hm−2)Economic coefficientCrop water consumption (mm)Water use efficiency (kg·hm−2·mm−1)WheatCornWheatCornWheatCornWheatCornWheatCornMonocultureB6490a11590a19091a22251b0.33b0.52a511a621a12.9b18.7bR6621a11840a17713b25238a0.37a0.47b491a603a13.3b19.6bS6956a12136a18762a25544a0.37a0.48b449b557b15.5a21.8aIntercroppingB8052a13146b19221a21221b0.42a0.62a490a562a16.5b23.4bR8142a13642ab19904a24461a0.41a0.56b481a557a16.9b24.5bS8553a14098a19768a24744a0.43a0.57b441b515b19.4a27.4aThe water consumption of crop under various planting modes is different (wheat monoculture, wheat intercropping, corn monoculture, and corn intercropping). Compared with different stubble retention methods, standing stubble treatment was significantly lower than turning and incineration treatment. Wheat monoculture decreased by 8.6% and 12.1%, respectively, wheat intercropping decreased by 8.3% and 10.0%, respectively, corn monoculture decreased by 7.6% and 10.3%, respectively, and corn intercropping decreased by 7.6% and 8.6%, respectively. In wheat monoculture, the WUE of standing stubble treatment was significantly higher than that of incineration and turnover treatment, and there was no significant difference between incineration and turnover treatments. The WUE of standing stubble treatment increased by 20.4% and 16.2%, respectively. In wheat intercropping, WUE of standing stubble treatment increased by 17.9% and 14.6%, respectively, compared with incineration and turnover treatment.


## 4.5. Impact of Stubble Retention and Planting Mode on Crop Economic Benefits

The analysis of input and output benefits of different stubble and planting modes (Figure2) shows that, in wheat monoculture, the net benefits of turning back and burning and standing stubble treatment are 5960, 5698, and 7815 yuan • hm−2, respectively, and the income of standing stubble is 31.1% and 37.2% higher than that of turning back and burning, respectively; in maize monoculture planting, the net incomes of returning, burning, and stubble treatment were 10686, 10260, and 12373 yuan • hm−2, respectively, and the income of stubble treatment was 15.8% and 20.5% higher than that of returning and burning, respectively; in wheat/maize intercropping, the net income of returning, burning, and stubble was 11471, 10946, and 13454 yuan • hm−2, respectively, and the income of returning and stubble was 17.3% and 22.9% higher than that of burning, respectively. Under the three planting modes, stubble treatment has the highest economic benefit, followed by turning and incineration treatment, which is mainly due to the fact that stubble treatment eliminates the procedures of soil rotation before sowing, land preparation, and middle tillage, and has better effects of water storage and moisture conservation, and the grain yield is also higher than the other two treatments, which finally makes the economic yield significantly higher than turning and incineration treatment. Under the stubble treatment, the yield gain of wheat or maize intercropping was 6761 yuan higher than that of wheat monoculture, and the difference was small compared with that of maize monoculture. Compared with wheat monoculture and maize monoculture; the economic benefit increased by 5639 yuan hm–2 and 1081 yuan hm–2, respectively.Figure 2
Effects of stubble retention and planting mode on crop economic benefits.


## 5. Conclusion

Through the comparison of different planting methods of corn, we can get the most scientific and economic benefits for the development of wheat. The conclusions are as follows: This study found that, in various planting modes, the relative accumulation rate of dry matter in the early stage of stubble treatment was lower than that of incineration and return treatment and gradually caught up with and exceeded that of incineration and return treatment in the middle and later stage, but there was also an alternating rise phenomenon. It is mainly because the stubble treatment absorbs less light radiation and less water loss in the early growth stage, so the soil temperature is low, while the soil temperature increases in the middle and later stage, and the temperature no longer becomes the main factor restricting crop growth. Conservation tillage can effectively inhibit soil water evaporation and improve crop water use efficiency. This study shows that the soil water storage of standing stubble treatment is 9.2% and 12.8% higher than that of turning and incineration treatment in the whole crop growth period, while the turning treatment is significantly higher than incineration treatment only on June 12. Although the irrigation amount of standing stubble treatment is slightly lower than that of the other two treatments, standing stubble reduces the solar radiation and water exchange between soil and atmosphere, reduces the loss of soil water evaporation, and improves the water use efficiency (WUE). Conservation tillage can save costs and increase benefits. The results of this experiment show that, under the three planting modes, the economic benefit of stubble treatment is the highest, followed by turnover, and the economic benefit of incineration treatment is the lowest. The main reason is that stubble treatment eliminates the procedures of soil rotation before sowing, land preparation, and middle tillage and has a good effect of water storage and moisture conservation, and the crop grain yield is also higher than those in the other two treatments. Finally, the economic yield is significantly higher than those of turnover and incineration treatment. It is concluded that, in addition to high yield and WUE, the no tillage stubble planting mode has significant ecological effects on straw recycling, water storage and moisture conservation, and increasing soil organic matter in Hexi oasis irrigation area, but the effects of climate and year type on it need to be further studied.



---

*Source: 2914749-2022-06-25.xml*