Pak. J. Bot., 48(4): 1459-1466, 2016.

PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY OF

PEANUT-MILLET INTERCROPPING
LIANGSHAN FENG1, ZHANXIANG SUN1*, MUZI ZHENG2, MWANGI MUCHOKI2, JIAMING ZHENG1,
NING YANG1, WEI BAI1, CHEN FENG1, ZHE ZHANG1, QIAN CAI 1 AND DONGSHENG ZHANG3
1
Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenyang, Liaoning 110161, PR China
2
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996, USA
3
China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, PR China
*
Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

Peanut-millet intercropping is a new planting pattern in northeastern China to deal with scarce oil-bearing crops’
products and severe wind erosion in peanut fields. Land productivity and water use efficiency are the important factors that
affect the application of this planting pattern. In this research, two peanut-millet intercropping patterns were studied in
comparison with sole planting pattern of peanut or foxtail millet to reduce water consumption and improve water use
efficiency. One intercropping system was 2P2M (2-row peanut with 2-row millet), and the other was 4P2M (4-row peanut
with 2-row millet). Some indices were calculated to characterize the intercropping efficiency of land and water use as
compared to those of sole crops of peanut and foxtail millet. The results showed that land equivalent ratio (LER) of two
peanut-millet intercropping patterns ranged from 1.15 to 1.19, while water equivalent ratio (WER) ranged from 1.17 to 1.22,
and △WU, the relative departure of actual water use in intercropping from expected use, was close to zero, indicated that
peanut-millet intercropping increased the productivity but didn’t increase the water consumption. The foxtail millet in the
intercropping population gained more water compared with peanut; the soil water of foxtail millet strips in the 2P2M and
4P2M increased 69% and 45%, respectively, as compared with that of peanut strips after a 58.8mm rainfall during the mid-
term of crops growth. These findings suggest that the rainfall’s distribution in the soil of different crops was optimized in the
peanut-millet intercropping system.

Key words：Intercropping; Crop productivity; Land equivalent ratio (LER); Water equivalent ratio (WER); Water use
efficiency (WUE).

Introduction family’s crops is regarded as the active pattern to prevent

the wind-erosion in peanut fields (Li N. et al., 2013).
The intercropping is one of the essences of the Foxtail millet (Setaria italica L. Beauv.) is one of the
traditional Chinese exquisite agricultural technologies. principal crops in the northern China. The intercropping
The proper intercropping pattern makes the usage of the stripe is not very wide in the peanut-millet intercropping
light, heat, water and nutrient resources in high efficiency system, which is suitable for the production system of
with the advantage of high and stable yield (Zhou et al., Chinese small range-operated household. The sowing
2008; Chen et al., 2012; Usmanikhail et al., 2013). At the time of peanut and foxtail millet is also the same, and
same time, the intercropping can decrease the impact of therefore the intercropping pattern is welcomed by
diseases, pests and weeds, reduce the usage of chemical farmers (Feng et al., 2013; Feng et al., 2014). Drought is
fertilizers and pesticides, improve the ecological a frequent problem occurs in northeastern China (Zhang
environment of the field, decrease the production cost, et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015), so the yield and water use
and increase the population yield and economic benefit efficiency are the highlights for people to decide whether
(Midmore, 1993; Li et al., 2001; Li et al., 2003; to use this cropping pattern.
Usmanikhail et al., 2012; Hussain et al., 2013; Li et al., Regarding the issue of that the intercropping could
2014; Guo et al., 2014). In recent decades, the soybean decrease the water consumption of the field, the results on
(Glycine max Merrill) planting area in the northeastern different crops in different regions are not the same. For
China has been reduced rapidly. Facing the urgent example, Mao et al. (2012) reported that the population
domestic need of the oil-bearing crops, the planting areas water consumption increased (+10%) significantly in the 2-
of soybean-substituted crops have increasingly based on row: 4-row of the maize (Zea mays L.) and pea (Pisum
peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Because the peanut is sativum L.). Miao et al. (2016) found that actual
drought and poor soil-resistant, it is planted in vast areas evapotranspiration, irrigation water use, crop transpiration,
in the northern semi-drought regions in China (the annual and groundwater contribution of intercropping systems were
rainfall is less than 500 mm). But the fields were severely larger than those of the sole crops, which led to significantly
wind-eroded for the loose earth’s surface is covered with higher yields of intercropping than those of single crops.
no remains in autumn after the harvest, winter, and spring However, some of the previous research results showed that
before emerging, added the wind is frequent, and the rain intercropping improved crop productivity and water use
is less in the region. This region has China’s largest sandy efficiency. Hu et al. (2016) found the wheat (Triticum
land—Horqin sandy land, with the gross area of 4.23 ×10 4 aestivum L.)-maize intercropping used more water but
km2. Currently, this sandy area is increasing at a speed of increased grain yields by 142% over the sole wheat and by
1.9% per year (Water resources in northeast China project 23% over the sole maize, thus, enhancing water use
group, CAE. 2006). The intercropping peanut with grass efficiency by an average of 26%. Zhang et al. (2010) found
1460 LIANGSHAN FENG ET AL.,

that the actual field evapotranspiration of maize-soybean times with the plot area of 120 m2 (10 by 12 m plots) and
intercropping was 15.37 mm and 29 mm lower than that of the row distance of 50cm. Crops were sown on May 15 in
the sole maize or soybean planting system, and the water 2011 and 2012, while on May 13 in 2013. The crops were
deficit of the maize-soybean intercropping was 45.54mm and harvested on September 22 during the three years. The
5.68mm lower than that of sole soybean and maize, planting density of peanut monoculture and intercropping
respectively. Chimonyo et al. (2016) proved that strips was 24×104/ha, and that of millet monoculture and
intercropping sorghum with either cowpea (Vigna intercropping strips was 48×104/ha. Fertilizer (the contents
unguiculata L.) or bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria Standl.) of N, P2O5, and K2O were 15%, respectively) was applied
resulted in better productivity and water use efficiency. at a rate of 100kg/ha and synchronized with sowing.
However, there are few types of research on the water
consumption characteristics and water utilization efficiency Sample collection and measurements: The measurement
of crops dry matter accumulation was started at 30 days
of the peanut-millet intercropping system currently.
after sowing. The samples were taken around every 15
For these reasons, the objective of this research was
days. We fetched 1 m2 plants of peanut and foxtail millet to
to investigate the influence of peanut-millet intercropping
separate the blade, stem-sheath, roots and fruit, to weigh
to the increasing of the utilization efficiency of soil
them separately after air drying. In regard of the peanut
resource and field water resource and estimate the water
strips of 4P2M intercropping, the samples were taken in
distribution and utilization system of the intercropping.
line 1 and line 2 near millet-side. After the maturity of the
crops, we randomly selected three 10m2 plots. The peanut
Materials and Methods and foxtail millet were handled and acquired practically,
measuring the yield after the air drying. In regard of the
Site description: A three-year field research was conducted 4P2M intercropping, we measured the peanut yield of line
in Fuxin Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of 1 and line 2 close to the millet-side separately and
Agro-Environment and Arable Land Conservation, Ministry calculated its average value. We also fetched plants of three
of Agriculture, P.R.China (Fuxin, Liaoning province, 1m2 plots, conducted the indoor seed-testing after the air
northeast China, 42o8’N, 121o46’E,). The altitude of this drying. Concerning the peanut, we mainly tested its
experimental station is 270m with the average character indices including pod number per plan, ripe pod
annualtemperature of 6.9oC, 154 frost-free days, average ratio, hundred-pod weight, hundred-kernel weight, and
annual rainfall of 481mm, average annualevaporation shelling percentage. Regarding the foxtail millet, we
capacity of 1789 mm. There were 231 days with the mainly tested its character indices including spike number
temperature over 0oC with the actively accumulated per unit area, panicle length, panicle weight, grain weight
temperature of 3667.8oC, 169 days whose temperature was per spike, and thousand grain weight.
not less than 10oC with the valid accumulated temperature of The soil water contents of 0-100 cm deep were
3298.3oC, and 144 frost-free days. The total solar radiation of measured using an earth boring auger and oven drying
the year was 579.87 kJ/cm2 with the photosynthetic active method, and the soil was divided into ten 10cm-thick
radiation of 284.28 kJ/cm2. The average yearly sunshine layers. After the weighing of the moist soil samples, they
duration was 2865.5 hours. The sunshine duration of the crop were put into the drying oven for 48 hours at the
growth period from May to September was 1295.8 hours, temperature of 105oC. After that, we net-weighed the
which accounts for 65% of the year. The relative humidity samples and calculated the water content of the soil. The
was 58.0%～59.0% with the average yearly wind speed of sampling spot was under the row of the planted crops. In
3.7～4.6 m/s. The rainfalls during the peanut’s and foxtail regard of the 2P2M intercropping, the sampling was
millet’s growth period were 331.5mm in 2011, 417.9 mm in conducted under the rows of peanut and foxtail millet
2012, 358.6 mm in 2013, and the crops were not irrigated separately. In regard of the 4P2M intercropping, the
during the three years. sampling was performed under the row of foxtail millet,
and the peanut row of line 1 and line 2 close to the foxtail
Experimental design: This field research was millet separately.
implemented from 2011 to 2013. There were three
treatments in 2011: sole peanut, sole millet, intercropping Data analysis: The actual water use (approximate
2-row peanut with 2-row millet. There were four treatments evapotranspiration, ETa, mm), we applied the soil
in 2012 and 2013: sole peanut, sole millet, intercropping 2-
water balance equation to conduct the calculation (Gao
row peanut with 2-row millet, intercropping 4-row peanut
et al., 2009).
with 2-row millet. Each treatment was repeated for three

ETa  I  P  RO  DP  CR  SF  SW

(1)

In the formula: I and P refer to the irrigation amount ground, it was ignored). △ SF is the side leakage
and rainfall amount (mm) in this period, respectively. amount of the soil water (mm), including side inflow
RO is the surface runoff volume (mm) of the soil amount SFin and outflow amount SFout (this test was
during the rainfall and irrigation (for this test had no ignored). △ SW is the variation amount of the soil
balk in the field, it was ignored). DP is leakage amount water content (mm).
of deep soil (mm). CR is the underground water
amount from capillary fringe to root area (for the Land equivalent ratio (LER) is an evaluation of the
underground water level of the testing field was land utilization efficiency of the intercropping (Rao
relatively low, which was more than 20m under the and Willey, 1980).
PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY OF PEANUT-MILLET INTERCROPPING 1461

Yint,A Yint,B
LER  LER A  LER B  
Ymono, A Ymono, B
(2)

In the formula: Yint,A and Yint,B are the intercropping ratio value between the needed lands for the
yield of crop A (peanut) and crop B (foxtail millet), monoculture to acquire the same yield with
respectively. Ymono,A and Ymono,B are the monoculture intercropping and the lands needed for the intercropping.
yield of crop A and crop B, respectively. LERA and LERB If LER is more than 1, it indicates that the land
are the partial land equivalent ratio of crop A and crop utilization efficiency of the intercropping is higher than
B. The land equivalent ratio refers to the ratio between that of monoculture.
the benefit from the mixed-cropping of two or more than Regarding the water utilization efficiency of the
two crops in the same field and the benefit from the intercropping population, we applied another evaluation
monoculture of every crop. It is the indication of the index WER (Water Equivalent Ratio) (Mao et al., 2012).

(Yint, A / WU int ) (Yint,B / WU int ) WUE int, A WUE int , B

WER  WER A  WER B    
(Ymono, A / WU mono, A ) (Ymono, B / WU mono, B ) WUE mono，A WUE mono, B
(3)

The definition of WER is similar to LER, water used in the intercrop (analogous to the definition of
Analogous to LER, WER quantifies the amount of LER). Y is yield. WUint is the actual evapotranspiration of
water that would be needed in single crops to achieve the whole intercropping system, WUmono,A and WUmono, B are
same yield as produced with one unit of water in the actual evapotranspiration of crops A and B in
intercrop. If the WER ＞ 1, it suggests that the water monocultures.
utilization efficiency of intercropping is higher than that We also applied the △WU (Morris & Garrity, 1993)
of monoculture. If WER ＜ 1, it shows that water to evaluate the water utilization efficiency of the
utilization efficiency of intercropping is lower than that of intercropping related with the monoculture. △WU
monoculture. Where WUEmono,A and WUEmono,B are the quantifies the relative difference between the actual water
water use efficiencies of monocultures of species A and uptake in intercropping (WUint,obs) and the expected water
B. WUEint,A and WUEint,B are water use efficiencies of use calculated from the water use of the two crop species
species A and B in the intercrop. These WUEs are in single crop multiplied by weights that express their
calculated as the yield of crop A or B per unit of total share in the intercropping (WUint,exp).

WU int ,obs WU int,obs WU int,obs

△WU  1  1  1
WU int,exp LER AWU mono, A  LER BWU mono, B (Yint, A / WUE mono, A )  (Yint,B / WUE mono, B )
(4)

This formula expresses the hypothesis that the average value of 2012 and 2013). The 4P2M millet
expected water use in intercropping is proportional to the yield of 2012 and 2013 was 31% lower than that of
water uses of either species in monoculture and the 2P2M millet yield in average.
relative yield compared to sole crop (partial LER) realized In the 2P2M intercropping system, the planting
in intercrop. Another way to express this hypothesis is area of peanut and foxtail millet was 50% of the
that expected water use in the intercropping is the sum of monoculture area respectively to produce 44% peanut
expected water uses by the component species, calculated and 75% foxtail millet related with the monoculture.
as their observed yield in intercrop, divided by the water This finding indicated that this kind of intercropping
use efficiency as determine in the sole crop. mode has advantages in the aspect of land utilization
(44%+75%＞100%). In the 4P2M intercropping
Results system, the planting area of peanut and foxtail millet
was 67% and 33% of the monoculture area respectively
Grain yields and land equivalent ratio: The yields to produce 65% peanut and 51% foxtail millet related
were significantly different under different treatment of with the monoculture. It also indicated that this kind of
peanut and foxtail millet from 2011 to 2013 (Table 1). intercropping mode has advantages in the aspect of
The average peanut yield of 2P2M was 1.7t ha -1 (44% land utilization (65%+51%＞100%).
of the peanut monoculture). The 4P2M peanut yield We further estimated the land equivalent ratio (LERs)
was 2.6t ha -1 (65% of the peanut monoculture, which of different planting patterns. The result showed that the
was the average value of 2012 and 2013). The 4P2M land equivalent ratio variation range of two planting
peanut yield of 2012 and 2013 was 44% higher than patterns was 1.15-1.19. The difference of the land
that of 2P2M peanut yield in average. The foxtail equivalent ratio of two planting patterns was not
millet average yield of 2P2M was 3.8t ha -1(75% of obviously (Table 2), indicated that these two
millet monoculture). The 4P2M millet yield was 2.7t intercropping modes have the advantage of improving the
ha-1 (51% of millet monoculture, which was the land utilization efficiency.
1462 LIANGSHAN FENG ET AL.,

Table 1. Grain yields of peanut and foxtail millet for different cropping systems,
sole and intercropping, in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Peanut yield(t ha-1) Millet yield(t ha-1)
Cropping system
2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013
Sole peanut (SP) 3.7 ± 0.3a 3.8 ± 0.4a 4.2 ± 0.2a
Sole millet (SM) 4.8 ± 0.3a 5.4 ± 0.3a 5.1 ± 0.4a
Intercrop 2P2M 1.6 ± 0.2b 1.7 ± 0.1c 1.8 ± 0.2c 3.5 ± 0.2b 3.9 ± 0.2b 3.9 ± 0.3b
Intercrop 4P2M 2.5 ± 0.1b 2.7 ± 0.2b 2.7 ± 0.3c 2.6 ± 0.2c
Values followed by the same letter within a column were not significantly different according to LSD at 0.05 level, the same below

Table 2. Land equivalent ratio (based on grain yield) in peanut-millet intercrops in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Year Cropping system LERA LERB LER
2011 Intercrop 2P2M 0.43 ± 0.05 0.73 ± 0.04 1.16 ± 0.07
2012 Intercrop 2P2M 0.45 ± 0.05 0.72 ± 0.04 1.17 ± 0.06
Intercrop 4P2M 0.66 ± 0.02 0.50 ± 0.05 1.16 ± 0.07
2013 Intercrop 2P2M 0.43 ± 0.05 0.76 ± 0.03 1.19 ± 0.07
Intercrop 4P2M 0.64 ± 0.06 0.51 ± 0.04 1.15 ± 0.05

Table 3. Yield components of peanut and foxtail millet for different cropping systems, sole and
intercropping, two years of average in 2012, 2013.
Crops Sole Intercrop 2P2M Intercrop 4P2M
Peanut Pod number per plan 12.6 ± 1.0a 10.7 ± 0.6b 11.9 ± 0.8ab
Ripe pod ratio (%) 83.0 ± 1.8b 89.5 ± 2.4a 86.3 ± 1.9ab
Hundred-pod weight (g/100-pod) 131.8 ± 3.4a 120.8 ± 4.1b 129.8 ± 2.6a
Hundred-kernel weight (g/100-kernel) 91.9 ± 2.1a 80.2 ± 2.3b 88.7 ± 3.5a
Shelling percentage (%) 69.9 ± 2.9a 66.0 ± 3.1a 68.3 ± 1.7a
Millet Spike number per unit area (/m2) 79.2 ± 4.3b 88.6 ± 3.1a 93.2 ± 2.6a
Panicle length (cm) 17.0 ± 2.1a 18.4 ± 1.6a 18.7 ± 1.9a
Panicle weight (g) 8.4 ± 0.7b 10.0 ± 1.0a 11.2 ± 0.8a
Grain weight per spike (g/spike) 7.2 ± 0.4b 8.7 ± 0.6a 9.2 ± 0.8a
Thousand grain weight (g/1000-grain) 2.5 ± 0.1b 2.8 ± 0.2a 3.0 ± 0.2a

We compared the relative indices of the yields of 61 kg ha-1 d-1, 25 kg ha-1 d-1 and 38kg ha-1 d-1,
peanut and foxtail millet in different planting methods respectively. The dry matter growth speed of the sole
(Table 3). The decreasing of the land productivity in millet, 2P2M and 4P2M millet intercropping was 123 kg
2P2M peanut intercropping strip (44% peanut produced in ha-1 d-1, 88 kg ha-1 d-1 and 69 kg ha-1 d-1, respectively. The
50% land related to monoculture) was because the per dry matter growth speed of 2P2M and 4P2M peanut
pod number, hundred-pod weight, hundred-grain weight intercropping was 40% and 62% of that of monoculture,
decreases, while its fruit-rate was higher than that of respectively; and the dry matter growth speed of 2P2M
monoculture. Every composition character of 4P2M and 4P2M millet intercropping was 72% and 56% of that
peanut intercropping yield was no significant difference of monoculture, respectively. That was consistent with the
with that of monoculture. While the hundred-pod weight difference on the yield of different planting methods.
and hundred-grain weight of the 4P2M intercropping was
higher than that of 2P2M intercropping. Rainfall distribution: By observing during the rainfall,
The increasing of the land productivity in 2P2M we found (Fig. 2a) that in the intercropping system, the
intercropping strips (75% foxtail millet produced in 50% canopy area of foxtail millet was much larger than that of
land related to monoculture) and 4P2M intercropping peanut. During the rainfall, the canopy of foxtail millet
strips (51% foxtail millet produced in 33% land related to intercepted and captured more precipitation, and it flowed
monoculture), in the aspect of yield character, mainly to the root of foxtail millet along with the leaf and stem. It
reflected that the indices like ear number, ear weight, ear was to make the rainfall in asymmetrical distribution in
grain weight and 1000-grain weight were higher than that the intercropping system. Therefore, the foxtail millet
of monoculture. gained more precipitation. However, the peanut
monoculture (Fig. 2b) and millet monoculture (Fig. 2c)
Dry matter accumulation: Before the 44 days after didn’t exhibit such an effect.
sowing, the difference of dry matter accumulation volume By investigating the pre-rain and post-rain soil water
between the intercropping and monoculture of the peanut content variation, we found that the soil water increasing
and foxtail millet was not significant. After that, the dry amount of the 2P2M and 4P2M millet intercropping strips
matter accumulation speed of sole peanut or foxtail millet were much higher than that of the relative peanut strips
per unit was considerably faster than that of intercropping (Table 4). The soil water increasing of the foxtail millet
(Fig. 1). We calculated the dry matter growth speed of the strips was 1.69 times and 1.45 of that of the peanut,
sole peanut, 2P2M and 4P2M peanut intercropping was respectively.
PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY OF PEANUT-MILLET INTERCROPPING 1463

Fig. 1. Growth patterns of peanut (a) and foxtail millet (b) after sowing in 2012.

a 2P2M b SP c SM

Fig. 2(a, b, c). Field picture during the rainfall of different planting systems. In Aug.2 nd, 2012, a one-time rainfall capacity was
58.8mm.

Fig. 3. Water use efficiency of peanut (a) and foxtail millet (b) in monoculture and intercropping in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Water use
efficiency in intercrops is expressed as the yield of one crop divided by the total water use of the whole intercrop system.
1464 LIANGSHAN FENG ET AL.,

Table 4. The variation of pre-rain and post-rain 1 meter-deep soil water storage content, 2012 (mm).
Before the rain (1 August) After the rain (3 August) Soil moisture increase
Cropping system
Peanut Millet Peanut Millet Peanut Millet
Sole peanut(SP) 243.7 ± 6.4a - 274.4 ± 8.3a - 30.7 ± 5.6a -
Sole millet(SM) - 211.4 ± 6.7b - 245.7 ± 9.7b - 34.3 ± 6.3b
Intercrop 2P2M 234.3 ± 8.3b 223.8 ± 8.1a 259.1 ± 6.5b 267.6 ± 10.0a 25.8 ± 4.2b 43.8 ± 5.0a
Intercrop4P2M 238.6 ± 6.7b 227.7 ± 6.8a 268.0 ± 5.4b 270.4 ± 6.6a 29.4 ± 3.9a 42.7 ± 4.5a

Table 5. Indices for water use efficiency in peanut-millet intercrops in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Year Cropping system △WU(%) WERA WERB WER
2011 Intercrop2P2M 0.45 ± 2.48a 0.40 ± 0.02a 0.77 ± 0.04a 1.17 ± 0.06a
2012 Intercrop2P2M 0.36 ± 3.54a 0.39 ± 0.03b 0.81 ± 0.08a 1.21 ± 0.11a
Intercrop4P2M -0.80 ± 2.67a 0.65 ± 0.05a 0.53 ± 0.09b 1.18 ± 0.08a
2013 Intercrop2P2M -0.59 ± 2.42a 0.41 ± 0.04b 0.81 ± 0.02a 1.22 ± 0.09a
Intercrop4P2M -2.35 ± 4.10a 0.64 ± 0.11a 0.55 ± 0.06b 1.19 ± 0.08a

Advantage in water use and productivity by Discussion

intercropping: There was the significant difference in
WUE of different planting ways (Table 5), the order of One of the important reasons for Chinese farmers
peanut WUE was as follows: SP＞2PSM＞4PSM (Fig. to practice intercropping is increasing land productivity
3a), while the order of foxtail millet WUE was: and improving resources utilization efficiency (Feike et
SM＞4PSM＞2PSM (Fig. 3b). By two indices of WER al., 2010). Some intercropping patterns, such as
and △WU, we evaluated intercropping system’s effect on intercropping maize with winter wheat, with poor
the enhancement of water utilization efficiency. If WUE, but widely popularized in northern China,
WER＞1 and △WU＜0, it indicates that the water because of it significantly raised yield (Gao et al.,
consumption amount of the intercropping system is lower 2009). In our research, we found the LER variation
than that of monoculture, while the water utilization range of two peanut-millet intercropping patterns was
efficiency of the intercropping is higher than that of 1.15-1.19 and the WER variation range was 1.17-1.22,
which indicated the intercropping had the potential to
monoculture. On the contrary, if WER＜1 and △WU＞0,
increase the utilization efficiency of land and water in
it indicates that the water consumption amount of the
large extent, comparing with the single crops. In other
intercropping system is higher, and the water utilization
words, the same land and water of the intercropping
efficiency is lower. In this research, WERs of
may provide the relatively high yield. So the
intercropping system were all greater than 1 (Table 6),
intercropping peanut with foxtail millet was more
which indicated that the water utilization efficiency of the
consistent with the expectations of farmers. One of
intercropping was higher than that of monoculture.
reasons for improving LER and WER is that
△WUs were not over 0 obviously or less than 0 (Table
intercropping makes better use of one or more
6), which indicated that the water consumption amount of agricultural resources both in time and in space
intercropping system didn’t increase or decrease (Rodrigo et al., 2001), such as greater interception of
obviously as compared to that of monoculture. At the sunlight and more efficient conversion of the
same time, the difference between 2P2M and 4P2M was intercepted radiation (Li et al., 2006), more efficient
not significant, which was relatively consistent with the root distribution in space plays (Gao et al., 2010),
result of LER (Table 2). It indicated that both of mutually beneficial effects of allelopathy or
intercropping patterns had same functions and effects in phenological characteristics (Khan et al., 2002; Li et
the aspect of water utilization efficiency. WERB (partial al., 2013), and so on. While in arid and semi-arid areas,
WER of foxtail millet) was more than WERA (partial the key factor to improve the productivity of crops is
WER of peanut) in 2P2M intercropping system, and water (Fan et al., 2016).
WERA was more than WERB in 4P2M intercropping Foxtail millet is a C4 crop, has high water utilization
system. By comparing the partial LER of peanut and efficiency for the carbon assimilation efficiency of its
foxtail millet with partial WER, we found that the water per unit is relatively higher. While peanut is a C3
differences between the average partial LER of peanut crop, the water utilization efficiency and water
and partial WER (0.44vs0.40) in three years, the partial consumption are not high (Feng, 2010). In this study, soil
LER of foxtail millet and partial WER (0.74 vs0.80), the water content of foxtail millet strips of 2P2M and 4P2M
average partial LER of 4P2M peanut and partial WER intercropping had increased 69% and 45% water
(0.65vs0.65) in two years, the partial LER of foxtail millet compared to that of peanut respectively in a 58.8 mm
and partial WER (0.51 vs0.54) were not significant, rainfall in the middle period of crops growth, which made
suggesting that the increasing of the productivity of the rainfall get optimized distribution in the soil. This
peanut-millet intercropping was not at the cost of finding also suggested that the higher water efficiency
consuming more water. crop got more water. Thus, it was one of the important
PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY OF PEANUT-MILLET INTERCROPPING 1465

reasons for the increase in water use efficiency in peanut- Acknowledgements

millet intercropping system. In general, foxtail millet
needs more water than peanut under normal rain-fed The study was conducted under the support of
conditions (Feng et al., 2010), so how to balance the need National high level talent special support program of
of crops for water from farmlands by creating an China (Outstanding yang scholars), the National Science
intercropping population between peanut and foxtail and Technology Support Project of China
millet is important. And, there are some other effective (NO.2012BAD09B01), the National Natural Science
regulation measures to achieve optimization effect of soil Foundation of China (No. 1170407 and No.
moisture, e.g. tillage, irrigation and rational density 31461143025), the Project of Liaoning Bai Qian Wan
(Weldeslassie et al., 2016; Ren et al., 2016), so the Talents Program of China (2013921058), the Special
benefit potential of intercropping will be greater if Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest
combined with these methods. of China (201503105), the Cultivation Plan for Youth
The advantages of foxtail millet and the disadvantage Agricultural Science and Technology Innovative Talents
of peanut were existed in the peanut-millet intercropping of Liaoning Province (2014017).
system. Compared with the monoculture, yield and
biomass per unit land of foxtail millet strips increased in References
the intercropping system, while that of peanuts strips Chen, Y.Q., C. Luan and X.P. Shi. 2012. Xanthium suppression
decreased. And the decreasing of per unit land yield in the under maize sunflower intercropping system. J. Integ.
2P2M peanut intercropping strip (44% peanut produced in Agri., 11: 1026-1037.
the 50% land related with monoculture) was mainly Chimonyo, V.G.P., A.T. Modi and T. Mabhaudhi. 2016. Water
because the per pod number, hundred-pod weight, and use and productivity of a sorghum–cowpea–bottle gourd
hundred-grain weight decrease. Researchers noted the same intercrop system. Agri. Water Manag., 165: 82-96.
Fan, Z., T. An, K. Wu, F. Zhou, S. Zi, Y. Yang, G. Xue and B.
results in maize-peanut intercropping (Li et al., 2013). For
Wu. 2016. Effects of intercropping of maize and potato on
intercropping peanut was in the inferior position in water sloping land on the water balance and surface runoff. Agri.
competition, water stress affected the differentiation of Water Manag., 166: 9-16.
flower bud, which leads to the decreasing of per pod Feike, T., Q. Chen, J. Penning, S. Graeff-Hönninger, G. Zühlke
number (Upadhyaya, 2005). While, the differences of and W. Claupein. 2010. How to overcome the slow death
peanut yield components between 4P2M and sole peanut of intercropping in China? In: (Eds.): Darnhofer, I. & M.
Grötzer. Building Sustainable Rural Futures. Proceedings
were no significant. So, the choice of intercropping pattern
of the 9th European IFSA Symposium. pp: 2149-2158.
has a great influence on crops yield. Feng, L.S., M.Z. Zheng and Z.X. Sun, J.M. Zheng, L.Yang and
Y. Ning. 2010. Water consumption and use efficiency of
Conclusions major crops in southern kerqin sandy land. J. Agri. Biotech.
& Ecol., 3(2): 252-262.
Overall, results suggest that peanut-millet Feng, L.S., Z.X. Sun and J.M. Zheng. 2013.Water-fertilizer
intercropping effectively use water and land resources. coupling effects and efficient utilization under peanut-
Land equivalent ratio (LER) of two peanut-millet millet interplanting conditions. Adv. Materials Res., 742:
intercropping patterns ranged from 1.15 to 1.19, while 272-277.
Feng, L.S., Z.X. Sun, C.R. Yan, M.Z. Zheng, J.M. Zheng, N.
water equivalent ratio (WER) ranged from 1.17 to 1.22,
Yang, W. Bai, Y. Liu and C. Feng. 2014. Effect of peanut
and △WU, an index to evaluate the water utilization and foxtail millet intercropping on crop photosynthetic
efficiency of the intercropping related with the response and fluorescence parameters. Research on Crops,
monoculture, was close to zero, indicated that peanut- 15(2): 461-466.
millet intercropping increased the population but didn’t Gao, Y., A. Duan, J. Sun, F. Li, Z. Liu, H. Liu and Z. Liu. 2009.
increase the water consumption. The rainfall Crop coefficient and water-use efficiency of winter
distribution in the soil of different crops was wheat/spring maize strip intercropping. Field Crops
optimized, that was one of the reasons for the increase Research, 111: 65-73.
Gao, Y., A. Duan, X. Qiu, Z. Liu, J. Sun, J. Zhang and H. Wang.
in water use efficiency in peanut-millet intercropping 2010. Distribution of roots and root length density in a
system. Foxtail millet is a kind of high water efficiency maize/soybean strip intercropping system. Agri. Water
crop, with the competitive advantage in the peanut- Manag., 98(1): 199-212.
millet intercropping system, and achieved more water Guo, X.T., H.C. Xiong, H.Y. Shen, W. Qiu, C.Q. Ji, Z.J. Zhang
to use. The decreasing of per unit land yield in the and Y.M. Zuo. 2014. Dynamics in the rhizosphere and
2P2M peanut intercropping belt (44% peanut produced iron-uptake gene expression in peanut induced by
in the 50% land related with monoculture) is mainly intercropping with maize: Role in improving iron nutrition
because of the reduced per pod number, hundred-pod in peanut. Plant Physiol. & Biochem., 76: 36-43.
weight, and hundred-grain weight. In 2012 and 2013, Hu, F., Y. Gan, H. Cui, C. Zhao, F. Feng, W. Yin and Q. Chai.
2016. Intercropping maize and wheat with conservation
the average peanut yield of 4P2M intercropping agriculture principles improves water harvesting and
increased by 44% compared with that of 2P2M. The reduces carbon emissions in dry areas. Eur. J. Agron., 74:
increasing of the peanut yield was at the cost of the 9-17.
31% decreasing of the foxtail millet yield. Therefore, Hussain Z., K.B. Marwat, F. Munsif, A. Samad, S. Hashim, and
we can choose the proper intercropping pattern T. Bakht. 2013. Influence of intercropping in maize on
according to the crops yield expectation and the crops performance of weeds and the associated crops. Pak. J.
production price. Bot., 45(5): 1729-1734.
1466 LIANGSHAN FENG ET AL.,

Khan, Z.R., A. Hassanali, W. Overholt, T.M. Khamis, A.M. Ren, Y., J. Liu, Z. Wang and S. Zhang. 2016. Planting density
Hooper, J.A. Pickett, L.J. Wadhams and C.M. Woodcock. and sowing proportions of maize–soybean intercrops
2002. Control of witchweed Striga hermonthica by affected competitive interactions and water-use efficiencies
intercropping with Desmodium spp., and the mechanism on the Loess Plateau, China. Eur. J. Agron., 72: 70-79.
defined as allelopathic. J. Chemical Ecol., 28(9): 1871-1885. Rodrigo, V.H.L., C.M. Stirling , Z. Teklehaimanot and A.
Li, L., D. Tilman, H. Lambers and F.S. Zhang. 2014. Plant Nugawela. 2001. Intercropping with banana to improve
diversity and over yielding: insights from belowground fractional interception and radiation-use efficiency of
facilitation of intercropping in agriculture. New Phytologist, immature rubber plantations. Field Crops Research, 69(3):
203(1): 63-69. 237-249.
Li, L., F. Zhang, X. Li, P. Christie, J. Sun, S. Yang and C. Tang. Upadhyaya, H.D. 2005. Variability for drought resistance
2003. Interspecific facilitation of nutrient uptake by related traits in the mini core collection of peanut. Crop
intercropped maize and faba bean. Nutrient Cycling in Science, 45(4): 1432-1440.
Agroecosystems, 65(1): 61-71. Usmanikhail, M.U., S.D. Tunio, G.H. Jamro, F.C. Oad, S.W.
Li, L., J. Sun, F. Zhang, T. Guo, X. Bao, A. Smith and S.E. Hassan, Q.D. Chachar, M.A. Khanzada and A.W.
Smith. 2006. Root distribution and interactions between Gandahi. 2012. Agronomic and economic effect of
intercropped species. Oecologia, 147: 280-290. intercropping sugarbeet with oilseeds and lentil. Pak. J.
Li, L., J.H. Sun, F.S. Zhang, X.L. Li, Z. Rengel and S.C. Yang. Bot., 44(6): 1983-1988.
2001. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: I. Usmanikhail, M.U., S.D. Tunio, G.H. Jamro, F.C. Oad, S.W.U.
Yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Hassan, Q.D. Chachar and M.A. Khanzada. 2013. Effect of
Field Crops Research, 71(2): 123-137. intercropping cereals and lentil in sugar beet on yield and
Li, L., L. Zhang and F. Zhang. 2013. Crop mixtures and the monetary benefits. Pak. J. Bot., 45(2): 401-406.
mechanisms of overyielding. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Wang, N., Y.T. Wang, J.L. Yu, Y.F. Zhou, Q. Wu, Y. Gao, W.J.
Xu and R.D. Huang. 2015. Prioritization of feasible
2: 382-395.
physiological parameters in drought tolerance evaluation in
Li, M., Z.M. Sun, M.M. Li, H.Q. Yu, C.J. Jiang, X.H. Zhao,
sorghum: a grey relational analysis. Zemdirbyste-
S.L. Zhao, X.G. Wang and M.J. Cao. 2013. Effect of
Agriculture, 102(4): 457-464.
maize-peanut intercropping on peanut growth, yield and Water resources in northeast China project group, CAE. 2006.
quality. Acta Agriculturae Nucleatae Sinica, 27(3): 391- Strategic concern to land and water resources allocation,
397 (in Chinese with English abstract). ecology and environment protection. Engineering Science,
Li, N., L. Ren and J. Liu. 2013. Technology of wind erosion 8(5): 1-24 (in Chinese with English abstract).
resistance in maize/peanut intercropping. Biological Disaster Weldeslassie, T., R.P. Tripathi and W. Ogbazghi. 2016.
Science, 36(2): 213-216 (in Chinese with English abstract). Optimizing tillage and irrigation requirements of sorghum
Mao, L.L., L.Z. Zhang, W.W. Li, W.V.D. Werf, J.H. Sun, H. in sorghum-pigeonpea intercrop in hamelmalo region of
Spiertz and L. Li. 2012. Yield advantage and water saving eritrea. J. Geosci. & Environ. Prot., 4(4): 63.
in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research, 138: 11-20. Zhang, F., J.L. Yu, C.R. Johnston, Y.Q. Wang, K. Zhu, F. Lu,
Miao, Q., R.D. Rosa, H. Shi, P. Paredes, L. Zhu, J. Dai, J.M. Z.P. Zhang and J.Q. Zou. 2015. Seed priming with
Gonçalves and L.S. Pereira. 2016. Modeling water use, polyethylene glycol induces physiological changes in
transpiration and soil evaporation of spring wheat–maize sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) seedlings under
and spring wheat–sunflower relay intercropping using the suboptimal soil moisture environments. Plos One, 10(10):
e0140620.
dual crop coefficient approach. Agri. Water Manag., 165:
Zhang, Y., Z.X. Sun, S. Li, L.S. Feng, N. Yang, Y. Liu, Z.Y.
211-229.
Hou, W. Bai and F. Wen. 2010. Study on water
Midmore, D.J. 1993. Agronomic modification of resource use consumption of con and soybean in different cropping
and intercrop production. Field Crops Research, 34(3): patterns on the semi- arid region of western Liaoning
357-380. Province. Agri. Res. in the Arid Areas, 28(5): 43-46 (in
Morris, R.A. and D.P. Garrity. 1993. Resources capture and Chinese with English abstract).
utilization in intercropping: Water. Field Crops Research, Zhou, S.S, Y.M. Li, M. Zhou and Y. Zheng. 2008. Influence of
34: 303-317. wheat and broad bean intercropping and barley and broad
Rao, M.R. and R.W. Willey. 1980. Evaluation of yield stability bean intercropping on soil water consumption and water
in intercropping: studies on sorghum/pigeonpea. Exp. Agri., use efficiency. Southwest China J. Agri. Sci., 21(3): 602-
16(2): 105-116. 607 (in Chinese with English abstract).

(Received for publication 20 July 2015)