Effects of Configuration Mode on the Light-Response Characteristics and Dry Matter Accumulation of Cotton under Jujube–Cotton Intercropping
<p>Study area map. (<b>a</b>) The location of Xinjiang province; (<b>b</b>) the location of the Alar city site; (<b>c</b>) the image of the experimental field (red box area) obtained on 16 September 2021 using a unmanned air vehicle.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The rainfall and daily average temperature of the experimental field in 2020 and 2021.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Diagram of field configuration modes.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The rectangular hyperbolic correction model fits the light-response curve. (T: leaf temperature; Ca: reference chamber CO<sub>2</sub> concentration; R<sup>2</sup>: coefficient of determination; Pmax: the maximum net photosynthetic rate; LSP: light saturation point; LCP: light compensation point; Rd: dark respiration rate; AQE: apparent quantum efficiency).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Light-response curves of cotton net photosynthetic rate (Pn) under different configuration modes. (<b>A</b>: seedling period; <b>B</b>: budding period; <b>C</b>: flowering and boll development period; <b>D</b>: maturation period.).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Light-response curves of cotton transpiration rate (Tr) under different configuration modes. (<b>A</b>): seedling period; (<b>B</b>): budding period; (<b>C</b>): flowering and boll development period; (<b>D</b>): maturation period.).</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Light-response curves of cotton stomatal conductance (Gs) under different configuration modes. (<b>A</b>): seedling period; (<b>B</b>): budding period; (<b>C</b>): flowering and boll development period; (<b>D</b>): maturation period.)</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Light-response curves of cotton intercellular CO<sub>2</sub> concentration (Ci) under different configuration modes. (<b>A</b>): seedling period; (<b>B</b>): budding period; (<b>C</b>): flowering and boll development period; (<b>D</b>): maturation period.).</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Light-response curves of cotton leaf instantaneous water-use efficiency (WUE, μmol·mmol<sup>−1</sup>) under different configuration modes. (<b>A</b>): seedling period; (<b>B</b>): budding period; (<b>C</b>): flowering and boll development period; (<b>D</b>): maturation period.).</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Effects of different configuration modes on the dry matter accumulation of the aboveground and belowground parts of the cotton plants. Note: the least significant difference was analyzed in years.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Effects of different configuration treatments on cotton yield and yield components. * represents significant difference at the <span class="html-italic">p</span> > 0.05 level.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Principal component analysis for different configuration treatments. LSP: light saturation point; LCP: light compensation point; Pmax: the maximum net photosynthetic rate; AQE: apparent quantum efficiency; Rd: dark respiration rate; LER: the land equivalent ratio; Bw: single boll weight; Lp: lint percentage; Bpp: boll number per plant; Dwpp: dry weight per plant.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Test Area and Test Material Overview
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Method
2.3.1. Plotting of Light-Response Curve
2.3.2. Dry Matter Determination
2.3.3. Determination of Cotton Economic Yield and Its Components
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Differences in the Cotton Light-Response Curves under Different Configuration Modes
3.1.1. Cotton Pn Light-Response Curves
3.1.2. Cotton Tr Light-Response Curves
3.1.3. Cotton Gs Light-Response Curves
3.1.4. Cotton Ci Light-Response Curves
3.1.5. Cotton WUE Light-Response Curves
3.2. Effects of Different Configuration Modes on Cotton Photosynthetic Characteristic Parameters
3.3. Effects of Different Configuration Modes on the Dry Matter Distribution Characteristics of Cotton
3.4. Effects of Different Configuration Modes on the Dry Matter Accumulation of the Aboveground and Belowground Parts of the Cotton Plants
3.5. Effects of Different Configuration Modes on Cotton Yield and Yield Components
3.6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Photosynthetic Characteristic Parameters and Yield and Yield Components
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, X.; Shen, L.; Liu, T.; Wei, W.; Zhang, S.; Li, L.; Zhang, W. Microclimate, yield, and income of a jujube–cotton agroforestry system in Xinjiang, China. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 182, 114941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, H.; Sarwar, N.; Ahmad, S.; Farooq, O.; Nahar, K.; Hasanuzzama, M. Cotton-based intercropping systems. In Cotton Production and Uses; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 321–340. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, D.; Du, G.; Sun, Z.; Bai, W.; Wang, Q.; Feng, L.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Yang, S.; et al. Agroforestry enables high efficiency of light capture, photosynthesis and dry matter production in a semi-arid climate. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 94, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, L.; Han, S.; Werf, W.; Jochem, B.; Su, Z.; Niels, P.R. Spatial configuration drives complementary capture of light of the understory cotton in young jujube plantations. Field Crops Res. 2017, 213, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Stomph, T.; Makowski, D.; Zhang, L.; Werf, W. A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management. Field Crops Res. 2016, 198, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Zhang, L.; Liu, J.; Han, S.; Wang, Q.; Evers, J.; Li, L. Plant density affects light interception and yield in cotton grown as companion crop in young jujube plantations. Field Crops Res. 2014, 169, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.Y.; Yang, T.; Shen, L.; Zhang, W.L.; Wan, S.M.; Zhang, W.; Li, L.H. Formation of factors influencing cotton yield in jujube–cotton intercropping systems in Xinjiang, China. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.D.; Song, F.B. Maize photosynthesis and microclimate within the canopies at grain-filling stage in response to narrow-wide row planting patterns. Photosynth. Int. J. Photosynth. Res. 2012, 50, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, J.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, S. Photosynthesis, growth and yield of soybean and maize in a tree-based agroforestry intercropping system on the Loess Plateau. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 76, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Sun, J.; Zhang, F.; Guo, T.; Bao, X.; Smith, F.; Smith, S. Root distribution and interactions between intercropped species. Oecologia 2006, 147, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knörzer, H.; Graeff-Hönninger, S.; Guo, B.; Wang, P.; Claupein, W. The rediscovery of intercropping in China: A traditional cropping system for future Chinese agriculture—A review. In Climate Change, Intercropping, Pest Control and Beneficial Microorganisms; Springer Netherlands Publisher: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 13–44. [Google Scholar]
- Nourbakhsh, F.; Koocheki, A.; Mahallati, M.N. Investigation of Biodiversity and Some of the Ecosystem Services in the Intercropping of Corn, Soybean and Marshmallow. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2019, 13, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Jia, X.; Morris, C.E.; Bai, Y.; Wang, G. Stem, branch and leaf biomass-density relationships in forest communities. Ecol. Res. 2012, 27, 819–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clare, T.; Rob, B.; Hazel, D.; Robinson, D. Dynamic trajectories of growth and nitrogen capture by competing plants. New Phytol. 2012, 193, 948–958. [Google Scholar]
- Govindjee; Krogmann, D. Discoveries in oxygenic photosynthesis (1727–2003): A perspective. Photosynth. Res. 2004, 80, 15–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elfadl, M.A.; Luukkanen, O. Field studies on the ecological strategies of Prosopis juliflora in a dryland ecosystem. J. Arid. Environ. 2005, 66, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Han, L.; Xu, Y.; Niu, J.; Yu, J. Simulated photosynthetic responses of Populus euphratica during drought stress using light-response models. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 2315–2324. [Google Scholar]
- Serôdio, J.; Moreira, D.; Bastos, A.; Cardoso, V.; Frommlet, J.; Frankenbach, S. Hysteresis light curves: A protocol for characterizing the time dependence of the light response of photosynthesis. Photosynth. Res. 2022, 154, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Hao, K.; Yang, Q.; Yang, X.; Zhang, W.; Cong, Y. Light-response curve of photosynthesis and model fitting in leaves of Mangifera indica under different soil water conditions. Photosynthetica 2019, 57, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baly, E.C.C. The kinetics of photosynthesis. Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 1935, 117, 218–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornley, J.H. Mathematical Models in Plant Physiology; Academic Press (Inc.): London, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Prado, C.H.B.A.; De Moraes, J.A.P.V. Photosynthetic capacity and specific leaf mass in twenty woody species of Cerrado vegetation under field conditions. Photosynthetica 1997, 33, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z. A new model for relationship between irradiance and the rate of photosynthesis in Oryza sativa. Photosynthetica 2007, 45, 637–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z.; Yu, Q. Comparison of new and several classical models of photosynthesis in response to irradiance. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2008, 32, 1356. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, Z.; Li, J. Comparative study on modified rectangular hyperbolic model and non-rectangular hyperbolic model of photosynthesis response to light. J. Jinggangshan Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2010, 31, 38–44. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, Z.; Yu, Q. A coupled model of stomatal conductance and photosynthesis for winter wheat. Photosynth. Int. J. Photosynth. Res. 2008, 46, 637–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, S. Low Temperature Is Critical for Jujube Grafting Success in Frost-prone Northern New Mexico. HortTechnology 2022, 32, 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okamoto, A.; Koyama, K.; Bhusal, N. Diurnal Change of the Photosynthetic Light-Response Curve of Buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), an Emergent Aquatic Plant. Plants 2022, 11, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Sun, J.; Lyu, M.; Wang, M.; Hu, D.; Zhong, Q.; Cheng, D. Prediction of photosynthetic light-response curves using traits of the leaf economics spectrum for 75 woody species: Effects of leaf habit and sun–shade dichotomy. Am. J. Bot. 2021, 108, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z.P. Advances in Photosynthesis Response Models to Light and CO2. Plant Ecol. 2010, 34, 727–740. [Google Scholar]
- Makhdum, M.I.; Pervez, H.; Ashraf, M. Dry matter accumulation and partitioning in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) as influenced by potassium fertilization. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2007, 43, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Shi, D.; Li, G.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, J.; Liu, P.; Ren, B.; Dong, S. Maize/peanut intercropping increases photosynthetic characteristics, 13C-photosynthate distribution, and grain yield of summer maize. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 2219–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watling, J.R.; Press, M.C.; Paul, Q.W. Elevated CO2 induces biochemical and ultrastructural changes in leaves of the C4 cereal sorghum. Plant Physiol. 2000, 123, 1143–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flexas, J.; Marc, C. Photosynthesis and photosynthetic efficiencies along the terrestrial plant’s phylogeny: Lessons for improving crop photosynthesis. Plant J. 2020, 101, 964–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.; Wong, S.; Weng, J. Rapid light-response curve of chlorophyll fluorescence in terrestrial plants: Relationship to CO2 exchange among five woody and four fern species adapted to different light and water regimes. Plants 2021, 10, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dufour, L.; Metay, A.; Talbot, G.; Dupraz, C. Assessing Light Competition for Cereal Production in Temperate Agroforestry Systems using Experimentation and Crop Modelling. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2013, 199, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, T.; Leverenz, J.W. Non-uniform stomatal closure and the apparent convexity of the photosynthetic photon flux density response curve. Plant Cell Environ. 1994, 17, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, M.; Yang, W.; Mao, X. Effects of water deficit on photosynthetic characteristics of spring wheat under plastic mulching and comparison of light response curve models. Trans. CSAM 2018, 49, 219–227. [Google Scholar]
- Xing, J.; Zhang, S.; Yan, Z.; Wei, R.; Zhang, L. Regulating Effects of Plant Density and Mepiquat Chloride Interaction on Plant Type and Yield of Cotton. Cottonology Rep. 2018, 30, 53–61. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, H.; Li, W.; Xin, C.; Tang, W.; Zhang, D. Late Planting of Short-Season Cotton in Saline Fields of the Yellow River Delta. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bednarz, C.W.; Nichols, R.L.; Steve, M.B. Plant Density Modifications of Cotton Within-Boll Yield Components. Crop Sci. 2006, 46, 2076–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaze-Corcoran, S.; Hashemi, M.; Sadeghpour, A.; Jahanzad, E.; Afshar, R.K.; Liu, X.; Herbert, S.J. Understanding intercropping to improve agricultural resiliency and environmental sustainability. Adv. Agron. 2020, 162, 199–256. [Google Scholar]
Period of Growth | Treatments | LSP (μmol·m−2·m−1) | LCP (μmol·m−2·m−1) | Pmax (μmol·m−2·m−1) | AQE (μmol·mol−1) | Rd (μmol·m−2·m−1) | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seedling period | CK | 1996.57 ± 165.05 a | 240.03 ± 38.52 a | 28.73 ± 6.00 a | 0.062 ± 0.005 a | 11.327 ± 0.194 a | 0.9982 ** |
CM1 | 1801.75 ± 704.29 a | 233.20 ± 64.34 a | 19.51 ± 3.32 bc | 0.060 ± 0.002 a | 11.079 ± 2.556 a | 0.9997 ** | |
CM2 | 1947.74 ± 400.54 a | 162.79 ± 48.77 a | 25.09 ± 3.60 ab | 0.060 ± 0.019 a | 6.708 ± 1.058 b | 0.9917 ** | |
CM3 | 1683.31 ± 27.07 a | 173.15 ± 32.19 a | 16.45 ± 0.65 c | 0.073 ± 0.002 a | 9.662 ± 1.561 ab | 0.9973 ** | |
Budding period | CK | 3038.15 ± 2060.43 a | 126.76 ± 16.04 a | 32.93 ± 2.30 a | 0.075 ± 0.004 a | 7.184 ± 0.195 b | 0.9977 ** |
CM1 | 2507.27 ± 843.79 a | 152.50 ± 23.87 a | 26.83 ± 5.16 ab | 0.071 ± 0.005 a | 8.247 ± 0.647 a | 0.9971 ** | |
CM2 | 2949.83 ± 354.06 a | 88.85 ± 14.14 b | 28.99 ± 3.29 ab | 0.067 ± 0.001 a | 5.311 ± 0.842 c | 0.9996 ** | |
CM3 | 1562.67 ± 172.53 a | 64.17 ± 4.25 b | 24.22 ± 2.52 b | 0.072 ± 0.012 a | 3.050 ± 0.199 d | 0.9972 ** | |
Flowering and boll development period | CK | 2519.90 ± 678.66 a | 109.02 ± 26.79 a | 33.55 ± 0.65 a | 0.070 ± 0.003 a | 6.551 ± 1.815 a | 0.9998 ** |
CM1 | 2510.46 ± 276.07 a | 149.75 ± 8.76 a | 32.63 ± 3.86 a | 0.065 ± 0.003 a | 8.105 ± 0.361 a | 0.9999 ** | |
CM2 | 2618.25 ± 332.77 a | 106.56 ± 44.38 a | 32.69 ± 3.74 a | 0.064 ± 0.0003 a | 5.771 ± 1.901 a | 0.9998 ** | |
CM3 | 2048.91 ± 67.26 a | 122.42 ± 29.78 a | 31.19 ± 3.93 a | 0.067 ± 0.004 a | 6.880 ± 1.136 a | 0.9997 ** | |
Maturation period | CK | 1306.67 ± 489.02 a | 125.33 ± 40.07 a | 13.24 ± 1.89 a | 0.031 ± 0.012 b | 2.826 ± 1.049 b | 0.9222 ** |
CM1 | 782.67 ± 126.64 a | 94.67 ± 22.03 a | 12.55 ± 2.04 a | 0.083 ± 0.001 a | 4.386 ± 0.924 ab | 0.9822 ** | |
CM2 | 1416.11 ± 1101.87 a | 136.09 ± 32.61 a | 6.38 ± 2.33 b | 0.077 ± 0.006 a | 5.785 ± 0.532 a | 0.9296 ** | |
CM3 | 405.33 ± 34.02 a | 126.67 ± 31.07 a | 4.01 ± 1.46 b | 0.044 ± 0.041 ab | 4.092 ± 1.038 ab | 0.975 ** |
2020 | 2021 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Growth- Period | Position | Vegetative Organ | Generative Organ | Weight per Plant (g) | Vegetative Organ | Generative Organ | Weight per Plant (g) | ||||
Field Configuration | Allocation (g) | Scale (%) | Allocation (g) | Scale (%) | Allocation (g) | Scale (%) | Allocation (g) | Scale (%) | |||
Seedling period | CM1 | 0.99 b | 100.00 | ― | ― | 0.99 | 1.90 b | 100.00 | ― | ― | 1.90 b |
CM2 | 0.87 b | 100.00 | ― | ― | 0.87 | 2.37 b | 100.00 | ― | ― | 2.37 b | |
CM3 | 0.81 b | 100.00 | ― | ― | 0.81 | 1.79 b | 100.00 | ― | ― | 1.79 b | |
CK | 1.65 a | 100.00 | ― | ― | 1.65 | 3.42 a | 100.00 | ― | ― | 3.42 a | |
Budding period | CM1 | 6.38 b | 97.36 | 0.16 b | 2.64 | 6.56 b | 19.11 a | 90.37 | 2.26 b | 9.63 | 21.23 ab |
CM2 | 8.46 a | 96.79 | 0.28 ab | 3.21 | 8.74 a | 16.14 a | 91.84 | 1.69 b | 9.62 | 17.58 b | |
CM3 | 4.36 c | 96.88 | 0.14 b | 3.11 | 4.50 c | 16.92 a | 92.99 | 1.42 b | 7.80 | 18.20 b | |
CK | 8.77 a | 96.26 | 0.35 a | 3.81 | 9.11 a | 18.96 a | 85.54 | 3.59 a | 16.20 | 22.16 a | |
Flowering and boll development period | CM1 | 32.61 ab | 80.85 | 7.73 ab | 19.15 | 40.33 ab | 62.63 ab | 71.40 | 25.09 a | 28.60 | 87.72 ab |
CM2 | 38.19 ab | 75.78 | 12.07 a | 24.22 | 50.26 a | 63.19 ab | 66.18 | 32.29 a | 33.82 | 95.48 ab | |
CM3 | 29.36 b | 85.35 | 5.04 b | 14.65 | 34.40 b | 51.39 b | 67.95 | 24.24 a | 32.05 | 75.63 b | |
CK | 41.48 a | 82.12 | 9.03 ab | 17.88 | 50.51 a | 71.30 a | 72.76 | 26.69 a | 27.24 | 97.99 a | |
Maturation period | CM1 | 49.54 c | 47.81 | 54.09 a | 52.19 | 103.63 b | 78.17 b | 41.65 | 109.54 a | 58.35 | 187.71 ab |
CM2 | 64.28 ab | 46.09 | 75.20 a | 53.91 | 139.49 ab | 89.58 b | 49.06 | 92.99 ab | 50.94 | 182.58 ab | |
CM3 | 52.27 bc | 49.19 | 53.98 a | 50.81 | 106.25 b | 84.91 b | 54.43 | 71.08 b | 45.57 | 155.99 b | |
CK | 66.78 a | 45.68 | 79.41 a | 54.32 | 146.19 a | 140.44 a | 60.32 | 92.37 ab | 39.68 | 232.81 a |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, T.; Wang, P.; Li, Y.; Li, L.; Kong, R.; Fan, W.; Yin, W.; Fan, Z.; Wu, Q.; Zhai, Y.; et al. Effects of Configuration Mode on the Light-Response Characteristics and Dry Matter Accumulation of Cotton under Jujube–Cotton Intercropping. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2427. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042427
Li T, Wang P, Li Y, Li L, Kong R, Fan W, Yin W, Fan Z, Wu Q, Zhai Y, et al. Effects of Configuration Mode on the Light-Response Characteristics and Dry Matter Accumulation of Cotton under Jujube–Cotton Intercropping. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(4):2427. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042427
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Tiantian, Peijuan Wang, Yanfang Li, Ling Li, Ruiya Kong, Wenxia Fan, Wen Yin, Zhilong Fan, Quanzhong Wu, Yunlong Zhai, and et al. 2023. "Effects of Configuration Mode on the Light-Response Characteristics and Dry Matter Accumulation of Cotton under Jujube–Cotton Intercropping" Applied Sciences 13, no. 4: 2427. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042427