Paper · 2022 · Frontiers in Microbiology

Sugarcane–Peanut Intercropping System Enhances Bacteria Abundance, Diversity, and Sugarcane Parameters in Rhizospheric and Bulk Soils

Ziqin Pang; Nyumah Fallah; Peiying Weng; et al.

9
claims
13
verbatim quotes
64
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Sugarcane–legume intercropping systems can effectively control pests and diseases as well as improve the fertility and health of farmland soil. However, little is known about the response of bacterial abundance, diversity, and community composition in the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils under the sugarcane–peanut farming system. A field experiment was conducted with two treatments: sugarcane monoculture and sugarcane–peanut intercropping to examine the response of sugarcane parameters and edaphic factors. We also deciphered bacterial abundance, diversity, and community composition in the root endosphere, rhizosphere, and bulk soil by leveraging Illumina sequencing to conduct the molecular characterization of the 16S rRNA gene and nitrogenase ( nifH ) gene. We observed that sugarcane–peanut intercropping exhibited the advantages of tremendously increasing cane stalk height, stalk weight, and millable stalk number/20 m, and edaphic factors, namely, pH (1.13 and 1.93), and available phosphorus exhibited a fourfold and sixfold increase (4.66 and 6.56), particularly in the rhizosphere and bulk soils, respectively. Our result also showed that the sugarcane–peanut intercropping system significantly increased the bacterial richness of the 16S rRNA gene sequencing data by 13.80 and 9.28% in the bulk soil and rhizosphere soil relative to those in the monocropping sugarcane system, respectively. At the same time, sugarcane intercropping with peanuts significantly increased the Shannon diversity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the sugarcane rhizosphere soil. Moreover, most edaphic factors exhibited a positive regularity effect on bacterial community composition under the intercropping system. A linear discriminant analysis with effect size analysis of the 16S rRNA sequencing data revealed that bacteria in the root endosphere of the intercropped cane proliferated profoundly, primarily occupied by Devosia , Rhizobiales , Myxococcales , Allorhizobium-Neorhizobium-Pararhizobium-Rhizobium , Bradyrhizobium , and Sphingomonas . In conclusion, our findings demonstrated that sugarcane–peanut intercropping can enhance edaphic factors, sugarcane parameters, and bacterial abundance and diversity without causing adverse impacts on crop production and soil.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping increased cane stalk height, stalk weight and millable stalk number.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
sugarcane–peanut intercroppinge0
Outcome
cane stalk height, stalk weight, and millable stalk number/20 me0
Direction
increasinge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“sugarcane–peanut intercropping exhibited the advantages of tremendously increasing cane stalk height, stalk weight, and millable stalk number/20 m”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–936 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping increased soil pH in rhizosphere and bulk soils.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Outcome
pHe0
Direction
increasee0
Value
1.13 and 1.93e0
Setting
rhizosphere and bulk soilse0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0

“pH (1.13 and 1.93), and available phosphorus exhibited a fourfold and sixfold increase (4.66 and 6.56), particularly in the rhizosphere and bulk soils, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1132 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane–Peanut Intercropping System”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping increased available phosphorus in rhizosphere soil.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Outcome
available phosphoruse0
Direction
increasee0
Value
4.66e0
Setting
rhizospheree0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0

“pH (1.13 and 1.93), and available phosphorus exhibited a fourfold and sixfold increase (4.66 and 6.56), particularly in the rhizosphere and bulk soils, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1132 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane–Peanut Intercropping System”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping increased available phosphorus in bulk soil.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Outcome
available phosphoruse0
Direction
increasee0
Value
6.56e0
Setting
bulk soilse0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0

“pH (1.13 and 1.93), and available phosphorus exhibited a fourfold and sixfold increase (4.66 and 6.56), particularly in the rhizosphere and bulk soils, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1132 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane–Peanut Intercropping System”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping significantly increased bacterial richness by 13.80% in bulk soil.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
sugarcane–peanut intercropping systeme0
Outcome
bacterial richnesse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
13.80e0
Comparator
monocropping sugarcane systeme0
Setting
bulk soile0

Verbatim

e0

“sugarcane–peanut intercropping system significantly increased the bacterial richness of the 16S rRNA gene sequencing data by 13.80 and 9.28% in the bulk soil and rhizosphere soil relative to those in the monocropping sugarcane system, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1413 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping significantly increased bacterial richness by 9.28% in rhizosphere soil.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
sugarcane–peanut intercropping systeme0
Outcome
bacterial richnesse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
9.28%e0
Comparator
monocropping sugarcane systeme0
Setting
rhizosphere soile0

Verbatim

e0

“sugarcane–peanut intercropping system significantly increased the bacterial richness of the 16S rRNA gene sequencing data by 13.80 and 9.28% in the bulk soil and rhizosphere soil relative to those in the monocropping sugarcane system, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1413 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping significantly increased Shannon diversity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in sugarcane rhizosphere soil.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
sugarcane intercropping with peanutse0
Outcome
Shannon diversity of nitrogen-fixing bacteriae0
Direction
increasede0
Setting
sugarcane rhizosphere soile0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“sugarcane intercropping with peanuts significantly increased the Shannon diversity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the sugarcane rhizosphere soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1432–1577 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most edaphic factors positively related to bacterial community composition under intercropping.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
intercropping systeme0
Outcome
bacterial community compositione0
Direction
positivee0

Verbatim

e0

“most edaphic factors exhibited a positive regularity effect on bacterial community composition under the intercropping system.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1588–1714 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane–Peanut Intercropping System”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–37 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root endosphere bacteria proliferated in intercropped cane, with several named groups predominating.

Taxon
canee0
Organ / stage
root endospheree0
Outcome
bacteria in the root endosphere of the intercropped cane proliferated profoundlye0
Direction
proliferated profoundlye0

Verbatim

e0

“bacteria in the root endosphere of the intercropped cane proliferated profoundly, primarily occupied by Devosia , Rhizobiales , Myxococcales , Allorhizobium-Neorhizobium-Pararhizobium-Rhizobium , Bradyrhizobium , and Sphingomonas .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1818–2049 · show in text ↑

intercropping · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 17 positive, 4 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

intercropping · ecology: diversity · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.