Abstract
Sugarcane/soybean intercropping and reduced nitrogen (N) application as an important sustainable agricultural pattern can increase crop primary productivity and improve soil ecological functions, thereby affecting soil organic carbon (SOC) input and turnover. To explore the potential mechanism of sugarcane/soybean intercropping affecting SOC sequestration, a two-factor long-term field experiment was carried out, which included planting pattern (sugarcane monocropping (MS), sugarcane/soybean 1:1 intercropping (SB1), and sugarcane/soybean 1:2 intercropping (SB2)) and nitrogen addition levels (reduced N application (N1: 300 kg·hm−2) and conventional N application (N2: 525 kg·hm−2)). The results showed that the shoot and root C fixation in the sugarcane/soybean intercropping system were significantly higher than those in the sugarcane monocropping system during the whole growth period of sugarcane, and the N application level had no significant effect on the C fixation of plants in the intercropping system. Sugarcane/soybean intercropping also increased the contents of total organic C (TOC), labile organic C fraction [microbial biomass C (MBC) and dissolved organic C (DOC)] in the soil during the growth period of sugarcane, and this effect was more obvious at the N1 level. We further analyzed the relationship between plant C sequestration and SOC fraction content using regression equations and found that both plant shoot and root C sequestration were significantly correlated with TOC, MBC, and DOC content. This suggests that sugarcane/soybean intercropping increases the amount of C input to the soil by improving crop shoot and root C sequestration, which then promotes the content of each SOC fraction. The results of this study indicate that sugarcane/soybean intercropping and reduced N application patterns can synergistically improve plant and soil C fixation, which is of great significance for improving crop yields, increasing soil fertility, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural fields.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased shoot carbon fixation relative to sugarcane monocropping.
Verbatim
e0“the shoot and root C fixation in the sugarcane/soybean intercropping system were significantly higher than those in the sugarcane monocropping system during the whole growth period of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased root carbon fixation relative to monocropping.
Verbatim
e0“the shoot and root C fixation in the sugarcane/soybean intercropping system were significantly higher than those in the sugarcane monocropping system during the whole growth period of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen level had no significant effect on intercropped plant carbon fixation.
- Taxon
- sugarcane/soybeant0
- Treatment
- N application levele0
- Outcome
- C fixation of plantse0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the N application level had no significant effect on the C fixation of plants in the intercropping system.”
t0“Sugarcane/Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased soil total organic carbon.
- Taxon
- Sugarcane/soybeane0
- Treatment
- Sugarcane/soybean intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- total organic C (TOC)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane/soybean intercropping also increased the contents of total organic C (TOC), labile organic C fraction [microbial biomass C (MBC) and dissolved organic C (DOC)] in the soil during the growth period of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased soil microbial biomass carbon.
- Taxon
- Sugarcane/soybeane0
- Treatment
- Sugarcane/soybean intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- microbial biomass C (MBC)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane/soybean intercropping also increased the contents of total organic C (TOC), labile organic C fraction [microbial biomass C (MBC) and dissolved organic C (DOC)] in the soil during the growth period of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased soil dissolved organic carbon.
- Taxon
- Sugarcane/soybeane0
- Treatment
- Sugarcane/soybean intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- dissolved organic C (DOC)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane/soybean intercropping also increased the contents of total organic C (TOC), labile organic C fraction [microbial biomass C (MBC) and dissolved organic C (DOC)] in the soil during the growth period of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping effect on soil carbon fractions was stronger under reduced nitrogen.
Verbatim
e0“this effect was more obvious at the N1 level.”
t0“Sugarcane/Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot and root carbon sequestration correlated significantly with TOC, MBC and DOC contents.
- Taxon
- sugarcane/soybeant0
- Outcome
- plant shoot and root C sequestratione0
- Comparator
- TOC, MBC, and DOC contente0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“both plant shoot and root C sequestration were significantly correlated with TOC, MBC, and DOC content.”
t0“Sugarcane/Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer that greater crop carbon sequestration increases soil carbon input and fractions.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane/soybean intercropping increases the amount of C input to the soil by improving crop shoot and root C sequestration, which then promotes the content of each SOC fraction.”
The same questions in other papers
Glycine max · soil: biology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
intercropping · soil: biology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →intercropping · soil: biology · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.