Yufeng LIU, Yumo TAN, Dan LIANG, Yongming LAI

1. Agricultural Resource and Environment Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China; 2. Guangxi Vocational College of Water Resources and Electric Power, Nanning 530023, China

Abstract [Objectives] To explore the proper intercropping pattern between chewing cane and peanut. [Methods] A field experiment was carried out to investigate the yield and economic benefit of chewing cane and peanut, as well as the changes in soil properties under different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns. Three chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns were designed, in which with every row of chewing cane intercropping one row of peanut(CP1), intercropping two rows of peanut (CP2) and chewing cane mono-cropping (MC). [Results] It had no significant effect on the agronomic characters of chewing cane and peanut in CP1 and CP2, compared with MC. The soil properties before the planting (BP) and after the harvest (AH) indicated that the chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns significantly increased soil organic matter and soil available nitrogen contents, but decreased soil available potassium contents, and CP2 had better effect on soil structure than CP1. The total production value and economic benefit were increased significantly on the CP1and CP2, comparing the MC, and the benefit of CP2 was higher significantly than that of CP1. The land equivalent ratios (LER) for CP1 and CP2 were 1.94 and 1.72, respectively, which was significantly higher than that of MC (0.83). Although planting cost was increased in chewing cane /peanut intercropping patterns partly, the production value and the profits were enhanced significantly. [Conclusions] CP2 could be significantly advantageous for the yield and benefits of chewing cane and peanut and soil properties. The favorable intercropping pattern for economic return would be one row of 120 cm width for chewing cane with two rows of peanut.

Key words Chewing cane, Peanut, Interplanting, Soil property, Economic benefit, Land equivalent ratio

1 Introduction

With the gradual transformation of agricultural production from resource consuming to technology-efficient, improving the utilization efficiency of resources has become the priority of agriculture research. Intercropping is the cultivation of multiple crop species in one field for the whole or part of their growing period[1]. Intercropping is widely used as an important means to provide food security, diversify cropping system, promote sustainable agricultural development, and efficiently utilize limited labor on smallholder farms[2]. The advantages of intercropping in improving the efficiency of resource utilization have been demonstrated across the world[3-4]. Intercropping could be applied to raise the utilization efficiency of natural resources such as light, heat, water, land and fertilizer to improve the primary production per unit area effectively, thereby increasing crop yield, quality and economic benefit for farmers[5-6], making a significant contribution to global food security[7-8]. Theory of intercropping constructed from the interaction of heterogeneous individuals in a composite population can provide a solid support for the wide application of intercropping. Improving land use efficiency is vitally important to maintain sustainable agricultural production with limited available land resources. Intercropping provides suitable environmental conditions for the growth of companion crops and increases land use efficiency with higher productivity and profitability and lower environmental risk[9].

Chewing cane (SaccharumofficinarumL.) is a type of sugarcane with low fiber content, higher sugar and water content, relevant amino acids, protein, Ca and Fe, and other necessary nutrients for the human body[10], as a main economic crop growing in southern China[11]. In general, chewing cane has a much longer duration, taking 12-14 months to reach maturity, but chewing cane has a juvenile period of 100-110 d[12]. Therefore, weed overgrows in the wide inter-row space (100-120 cm) of chewing cane during the juvenile period. In a chewing cane mono-cropping pattern, weed management can be a major difficulty for farmers. Yield reductions due to weeds under chewing cane mono-cropping pattern have been estimated to vary from 26% to 75%[13]. For weed management in chewing cane mono-cropping pattern, farmers generally rely on hand weeding and herbicides. However, hand weeding is not feasible and sustainable because of high labor costs and poor efficiency when weeds occupy the inter-row space. Because of high costs and environmental pollution, herbicides are not recommended for weed control. Hence, chewing cane intercropping with other crops is widely practiced[14-16].

Many studies of sugarcane intercropping with other crops had been reported[17-20], in which majority focused on the effects of sugarcane/peanut intercropping[21-23]. Previous studies have explored the theory and practice of optimizing resource utilization efficiency from the perspectives on sugarcane/peanut intercropping, such as yield increase[24], soil phosphorus availability[25], plant diversity[26], pest[27-28]and weed reduction[29-31], soil greenhouse gas emission reduction[32], water regulation[33-34]and fertilizer efficiency improvement, economic income rise[35-36], soil microbes and soil enzyme activities increasing[37]and heavy metal content decreasing[38-39]. However, there is no systematic study on the growth and yield of chewing cane and peanut, economics and land utilization under chewing cane/peanut intercropping in Southern China, and only a few studies have investigated the changes in soil properties as caused by chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns. The objectives of this study would to explore the optimal intercropping pattern of chewing cane with peanut, and provide a solid support for the practice application in Southern China.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Experimental site and cropsThe experimental field site was located at Guangliang Village (22°42′13″ N, 108°31′42″ E, altitude 88 m), Pumiao Town, Nanning City, China in 2018-2019. The field site has a subtropical monsoon climate, with an annual temperature of 21.8 ℃, annual precipitation of 1 650 mm, annual evaporation of 1 610 mm, annual sunshine of 1 690 h, annual relative humidity of 80% and a frost-free period of 346 d. The field trial soil is latosolic red soil type (Orthic Acrisol, FAOUNESCO system) derived from Quatermary red earth, with advantaged conditions for irrigating and draining. The previous crop was rape.

The Chewing cane "Guiguozhe No.1" used in the trial was provided by the Sugarcane Research Institute of Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (GXAAS), Nanning, China, and had been the dominant cultivar growing in the most cane areas of Guangxi and central and southern China. The peanut cultivar was "Guihua No. 871", provided by the Cash Crop Research Institute of GXAAS, Nanning, China, as a representative and widely growing in Guangxi.

2.2 Field experimental designThree treatments of intercropping patterns were drawn out in the field trial as follows: each row of chewing cane with two rows of peanut (CP2), each chewing cane row with one row of peanut (CP1), and mono-cropping chewing cane as control group (MC). Crop rows were oriented in a south-north direction. The field experiment was laid out as a randomized complete block design with three replications.

2.3 Crop managementThe farmland was tilled conventionally before the crops were planted. Chewing cane and peanut were cultivated in a ridge and furrow pattern (Fig.1). Chewing cane was planted in the furrows which were 30 cm wide and was covered by agricultural plastic film and fine soil (5 cm). Peanut was planted on the ridges, which were 90 cm wide.

Note: CP1: chewing cane/peanut intercropping (1∶1); CP2: chewing cane/peanut intercropping (1∶2); MC: chewing cane mono-cropping.

The chewing cane was planted in planting ditches with 30 cm in width and 20 cm in depth. Peanut was planted in sowing ditches at furrow surface with 90 cm width. The sowing ditches were dug with 15 cm in width and 10 cm in depth.

The row spacing of chewing cane was 1.2 m and that of peanut was 0.3 m in the intercropping field. One row of chewing cane was planted, and one row of peanut (CP1) or two rows of peanut (CP2) were planted in each plot. In CP1pattern, the peanut rows were planted in the middle of two rows of chewing cane. In CP2pattern, the intercropping pattern had a 30-cm-wide gap between chewing cane and associated peanut rows. Two rows of the chewing cane with 97 double bud seedlings were cultivated for all treatments. The peanut rows were plant spacing of 15 cm, respectively, with 76 holes in each row. The strongest plants were selected as the seedlings. Double budded seedlings were immersed in 0.2% carbendazim disinfectant for 20 min. The treated chewing cane seedlings were covered with soil and agricultural plastic mulching film. Chewing cane was planted on 16thMarch 2018 and harvested on 4thJanuary 2019, with a growth period of 294 d. Peanut was sown on 21stMarch 2018, harvested on 31stJuly 2018, with a growth period of 132 d.

The field weeds were controlled by the wettable atrazine powder herbicide containing 50% active ingredient before the crops were planted. Simultaneously, pesticides such as dipterex and pirimor were applied to control the pests in the field. Compound fertilizer (N∶P2O5∶K2O=15∶15∶15) 150 kg/ha, and calcium magnesium phosphate 75 kg/ha were applied on 16thMarch 2018 as base fertilizer when chewing cane was planted. Then the compound fertilizer (N∶P2O5∶K2O=15∶15∶15) 75kg/ha was applied on 13thApril 2018 as seedling fertilizer after peanut was sowed. The peanut was hilling after fertilizing. The topdressing for chewing cane was applied after peanut was harvested on 31stJuly in 2018, including compound fertilizer (N∶P2O5∶K2O=15∶15∶15) at 75 kg/ha. At the same time, peanut straw was returned to the chewing cane field.

2.4 Soil samplingSoil samples were collected before planting chewing cane (BP) and after harvesting chewing cane (AH), respectively. Nine soil samples were taken from all plots in where each plot with 10 column cores (0-15 cm) randomly taken as a composite sample. Preliminary treatment of all composite samples were carried out by air-dried, grinding, sieved through a 1.0 mm mesh, and plant residues and root were removed for soil analysis.

2.5 Measurements

2.5.1Crop yield. After harvesting, agronomic parameters, including average stem diameter (at 1 m above the base of 30 stalks), average stalk height (from the base to first visible dewlap of 30 stalks), average single stem weight of 30 stalks, total commercial stalk numbers per plot, average length of internode, and tons cane per hectare (TCH, t/ha) were measured. Plant fresh weights were used to determine individual stalk weight (kg/stalk), and TCH was calculated as the product of stalk number and stalk weight[40].

Plants were collected when the chewing cane or peanut was at maturity stage from three replicates in the field respectively. The peanut yields were measured by collecting all peanut pods in all rows of the chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns (CP1, CP2). The chewing cane yield was measured by cutting all stalks in the third row in all plots.

Total peanut weight was recorded from each plot. The total numbers of chewing cane plants in all plots were counted after harvesting. Total shoot numbers of chewing cane were counted at the maximum tillering stage in June and at millable stalks stage in November.

After peanut was matured, five representative peanut plants were sampled from each plot to analyze yield composition. Five yield-related traits were evaluated for CP1and CP2, plant height, pod branch number per plant, mature pod number per plant, yield per plant, and hundred-pod weight. At the same time, mature pod rate per plant (MPR) was calculated. Each yield-related trait was measured three times. All pods were collected from the peanut plants and air-dried, weighed and adjusted to a standard water content of 10%. Peanut yields in all plots were weighed and calculated.

2.5.2Soil analysis. Soil pH was measured in soil suspension with deionized-distilled water (soil/water=1∶2.5) and determined with a glass electrode (pHS-3C, Inesa Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd, China). Soil EC was measured by conductivity meter (DDSJ-350, Shenglan Instrument Manufacturing Co., Ltd., China). Soil organic matter content was determined by wet oxidation using the acidified dichromate method[41]. Soil total N was measured by Kjeldahl digestion according to standard protocols (8400, Foss Co., Ltd., Denmark). Soil total phosphorus was colorimetrically measured at 882 nm using the molybdenum blue method (T6, Beijing Persee General Instrument Co., Ltd., China)[42]. Soil alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen was determined using diffusion absorption method[43]. Soil available phosphorus was extracted with 0.5 mol/L NaHCO3solution and then measured using the molybdenum antimony-D-isoascorbic acid colorimetry method[44]. Soil available potassium was extracted with 1.0 mol/L NH4OAc and determined by flame photometry (FP640, Inesa Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd., China)[45].

2.5.3Economic analysis. Economic benefit evaluation of all patterns of chewing cane and peanut production was analyzed. Total production expenses of chewing cane and peanut were estimated based on local rates. Gross income was calculated by multiplying the measured yields in according with the local market prices of chewing cane and peanut in 2018-2019. Net income was determined by subtracting all expenses from the gross income[46].

The economic returns of chewing cane and peanut were evaluated by discounted partial budgets among the patterns that included the costs of fertilizer, seed, pesticide, labor and the revenues from the yield. Then, it benefit was defined as the product of yield and price minus cultivation costs[47]. The net benefit of intercrops was calculated as:

NB=Yc×Pc+Yp×Pp-C

(1)

whereYis crop yield,Pis the market price of crop, andCrepresents production costs. Here "c" and "p" indicate chewing cane and peanut, respectively. Production costs included labor for land preparation, fertilizer application, planting, weeding, crops harvesting and purchase of crop seed, fertilizer, and pesticide. Unit prices of production inputs were recorded at local markets, and averaged in experimental area (Table 1). Net benefits were calculated for comparison between the chewing cane mono-cropping and chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns.

Table 1 Parameters used for the financial analysis

2.5.4Land equivalent ratio. Land equivalent ratio (LER) was used to calculate land use advantage provided by intercropping. LER was calculated using the following formula[21,48]:

(2)

whereYicandYiprepresent the yields of chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns (CP1and CP2), respectively.YmcandYmprepresent the yield of chewing cane and peanut in mono-cropping pattern, respectively.

When LER=1.0, the intercropping has the same resource utilization efficiency with the corresponding mono-cropping; when LER>1.0, there is a yield advantage in intercropping; and when LER<1.0, there is a yield disadvantage in intercropping[49].

2.6 Statistical analysisOne-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the general linear model-univariate procedure from SPSS 24.0 for Windows software package (IBM, USA) was used to test the significant differences among the treatments. All the treatment means were compared for any significant differences using the Duncan’s multiple range tests at the 5% significance level.

3 Results

3.1 Effects on chewing cane growth and yield in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patternsAs shown in Fig.2, chewing cane/peanut intercropping pattern (CP1and CP2) affected on stalk diameter and single stalk weight significantly, compared to chewing cane mono-cropping (MC). Compared to MC, CP1and CP2increased plant height by 5.1% and 19.0%, but decreased stalk by 6.3% and 16.7%, respectively.

Note: Data in the figure are expressed as mean±standard deviation (n=3). Different letters indicate significant difference at P<0.05. MC: chewing cane mono-cropping; CP1: chewing cane/peanut (1∶1) intercropping; CP2: chewing cane/peanut (1∶2) intercropping. The following figures are the same as this figure.

There was not significant difference in chewing cane yield between chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns (CP1, CP2) to chewing cane mono-cropping (MC). Chewing cane yield of the CP2was higher by 3.1% (111.6 t/ha) than that of MC (Fig.3).

3.2 Effects on peanut growth and yield in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patternsThe effects of chewing/peanut intercropping pattern on peanut growth and yield were analyzed (Fig.4). Plant height of CP1and CP2was 5.1% and 19.0% higher than that of MC, respectively. However, commercial stalk of CP1and CP2was lower than that of MC by 6.3% and 16.7%, respectively.

Fig.3 Changes of chewing cane yield in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns

Fig.4 Changes of peanut agronomic traits in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns

Peanut yield of the CP2was increased by 3.6% than that of the CP1, but in which there was no significant difference between CP1and CP2(Fig.5). And six peanut growth indexes (plant height, total branch number per plant, matured pod number per plant, pod branch number per plant, full fruit rate, and hundred-pod weight) of CP1were higher than those of CP2.

3.3 Effects on soil properties in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patternsSoil pH from the field of before-planting was higher by 1.8% than that from the after-harvesting in CP1, similarly the soil electrical conductivity (EC) from the field of after-harvesting was significantly higher than that of before-planting (P<0.05) in three patterns, in which it was higher by 133.1%, 50.8% and 434.8% than that of CP1, CP2and MC, respectively.

Fig.5 Changes of peanut yield in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns

Statistically significant differences in soil organic matter of CP2before-planting chewing cane and after harvesting chewing cane were observed (P<0.05). Soil organic matter contents of CP2and CP1after harvesting chewing cane were 21.0% and 16.9% higher than those before planting chewing cane. Soil organic matter content of before planting was lower by 2.4% than that of the after harvesting in MC.

Soil total nitrogen after harvesting were higher by 5.3% and 2.7% than those before-planting chewing cane respectively in CP1and CP2, but it was lower by 0.9% than that in MC. Soil total phosphorus of CP2and CP1after harvesting was higher by 5.5% and 1.4% respectively than those before planting, but in which it was lower by 4.1% than that of MC. Soil total potassium of CP1and CP2after harvesting was higher by 8.9% and 2.9% respectively than those before planting, but it was lower by 3.0% than that of the MC (Fig.6).

Note: Data in the figure are expressed as mean ±standard deviation (n=3). MC: chewing cane mono-cropping; CP1: chewing cane/peanut (1∶1) intercropping; CP2: chewing cane/peanut (1∶2) intercropping. BP: Before planting; AH: After harvesting. * and ** indicate significant difference at P<0.05 and extremely significant difference at P<0.01, respectively.

Soil available nitrogen content after harvesting among the CP1, CP2and MC was higher by 72.0%，92.6% and 36.5% than those before planting, respectively, with significant differences atP<0.05 level. Available phosphorus content of the after-harvesting in the CP1was higher by 22.3% than that of the before planting, but there was lower by 18.9% in MC with significant difference atP<0.05 level. Available potassium content after harvesting in CP2, CP1and MC was lower by 60.0%, 40.1% and 19.2% than those before planting respectively, with significant differences atP<0.05 level.

3.4 Economic benefit analysis in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patternsThe economic benefits and cost of three intercropping patterns (Table 2) showed that chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns (CP1and CP2) were more beneficial than that of chewing cane mono-cropping (MC). Among the three intercropping patterns, CP1showed the highest revenue of 70 648 yuan/ha, followed by CP2then MC.

Table 2 Production value, cost and profit in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns yuan/ha

There were significant differences for the chewing cane output, gross output, cost and economic benefits between CP1and CP2to those of the MC (P<0.05), respectively. Gross output, cost, economic benefit of CP1and CP2were higher by 14.2% and 1.8%, 34.4% and 16.8%, 0.9% and 42.6% respectively than those of MC. Peanut output and cost of CP2were higher by 3.6% and 0.9% than those of CP1, respectively, but chewing cane output, gross output and economic benefit of CP2were lower by 3.0%, 2.2% and 5.7% respectively than those of CP1. Statistically significant differences in chewing cane and peanut output were not indicated in CP1and CP2, but chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns increased economic benefit significantly.

Note: Green (*) and Orange (**) indicate significant difference at P<0.05 and markedly significant difference at P<0.01, respectively.

Correlation analysis results (Fig.7) showed that production value of chewing cane and peanut was significantly related to total production value (P<0.01). The correlation coefficient between chewing cane production value and total production value (0.94) was higher than that between peanut production value and total production value (0.91). The correlation coefficient between peanut production value and cost (0.93) was higher than that between chewing cane production value and cost (0.76). Economic benefit was affected by production value of chewing cane and peanut significantly (P<0.01). The correlation coefficient between chewing cane production value and economic benefit (0.95) was higher than that between peanut production value and economic benefit (0.90). Under different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns, economic benefit was affected by total production value and cost significantly (P<0.01). The correlation coefficient between total production value and economic benefit (1.00) was higher than that between cost and economic benefit (0.89).

3.5 Analysis of land equivalent ratio in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patternsThe land equivalent ratio (LER) of CP2, CP1and MC was affected by the cultivated patterns significantly (P<0.05) (Fig.8). LER of CP2, CP1was higher than that of MC. The maximum LER (1.94) was found in CP2, while the minimum LER (0.83) was observed in MC. It had indicated the advantage of chewing cane/peanut intercropping pattern over mono-cropping.

Fig.8 Land equivalent ratio in different chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns

4 Discussion

4.1 Effect of intercropping pattern on growth and yield of chewing cane and peanutCompared with mono-cropping, intercropping pattern could promote crop growth and yield. Yang[25]found that the stalk diameter, millable stalks and cane yield of sugarcane/soybean intercropping was higher than those of sugarcane mono-cropping. In this study, the plant height, stalk diameter and millable stalks were affected by chewing cane/peanut intercropping pattern. The stalk diameter and stalk weight of CP2and CP1increased to some extent, but plant height and effective stalk declined. Wu[50]found that sugarcane interpolating with other crops reduces sugarcane yield, but Tan[51]indicated that reasonable sugarcane intercropping pattern had no obvious effect on sugarcane growth and yield. Singh[52]found that sugarcane intercropping with lentil had no adverse effect on the cane yield compared with sugarcane mono-cropping. For chewing cane, the yields of different intercropping patterns did not have a significant difference. Chewing cane yield of CP1was higher by 3% than that of MC. These findings were in agreement with those of Tan and Singh. Proper sowing orientation and spacing are important factors for best crop growth[53], rationality of chewing-cane/peanut intercropping patterns played an important role in yield and economic benefit of chewing-cane/peanut intercropping system, the rational chewing-cane/peanut intercropping patterns could not only increase the yield of chewing cane, but also improve peanut yield.

In this study, row spacing of chewing cane was 1.2 m, plant height, and the number of branch per plant, number of full fruits per plant, pod weight per plant, full pod rate and 100-pod weight of CP2were slightly lower than those of CP1, however peanut yield of CP2was higher than that of CP1. The reason for the above description is that peanut of CP1(1 row chewing cane intercropping with 1 row peanut) could get more growth space and nutrients than that of CP2(1 row chewing cane intercropping with 2 row peanut). Under no change on the planting area, competitive pressure of CP1was lower than that of CP2, so the peanut yield of CP2was higher than that of CP1. The above results were the same as those concluded by Wei[54].

4.2 Effect of intercropping pattern on soil propertiesCompetition and complementation are two main types of interspecific interactions[55]. They coexist and play a crucial role in promoting the productivity of intercropping system[56-57]. Crops with different characteristics of resource demand provide the basis for niche differentiation in time and space utilization, and promote the efficient utilization of related resources by inter-species complementarity, or one crop directly provides resources for another crop[58]. Due to differences in growth cycle, root distribution, nutrient requirements of chewing cane and peanut, chewing cane intercropping with peanut could reduce competition with each other and promote the use of different resources because intercrops utilize a given resource based on space-time differences. After peanut was harvested in intercropping treatments, peanut straw was returned and decomposed, and thus chewing cane could absorb nutrient of peanut straw, use of chemical fertilizers is reduced, and soil organic matter content for whole growth period is increased.

The influence of the different treatments on soil fertility was mainly reflected between the chewing cane mono-cropping and chewing cane/peanut intercropping (Fig.5). No significant divergences between three chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns were found in soil pH, total N, P, and K (P>0.05) before planting and after harvest. Compared with the mono-cropping system, available N and P contents increased significantly, while soil EC and available K were significantly decreased in the intercropping system (P<0.05). Nitrogen is fixed by peanut rhizobia and stored in the peanut plant, and is less likely to be released into the soil during its growth stage. After peanut straw was returned to the field, soil nutrient and organic matter content could be increased. In sugarcane/potato intercropping system, soil nutrient consumption decrease of intercropped sugarcane over sole sugarcane was observed, and soil organic content and available K of sugarcane/potato intercropping system increased by 3.3% and 6.9% than that in corresponding sole sugarcane[59]. Luo[60]found that sugarcane intercropping with soybeans can reduce chemical fertilizer input. In intercropping patterns (CP1and CP2), decline of soil available K content was relevant with intercropping peanut consumed potassium.

4.3 Effect of intercropping pattern on economic benefit

Possibly, productivity as well as adoptability of an intercropping system is ultimately determined by its net monetary gain. Chinese farmers have adopted the system of intercropping short-season crops with sugarcane, an all-year-round crop, likely because it increases farm income per unit area[53]. The net production value of chewing cane showed no significant difference between chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns (CP1and CP2) and chewing cane mono-cropping. The net production value of peanut was not significantly different between CP1and CP2. The total incomes of CP2and CP1increased by 66 610 and 70648 yuan/ha, respectively. Compared with the total income of MC, the income of CP2and CP1were increased by 34.4% and 42.6% (Fig.3). The production of chewing-cane and peanut and the total income presented significant positive correlation. At the same time, total income was affected by peanut production value significantly, and this testifies the economic benefit of chewing cane/peanut pattern was better than chewing cane mono-cropping. These findings were in agreement with those of Nadeem[53]. Yang[61]reported significant changes in legume crop with sugarcane. Difference in LER among different intercropping patterns was due to the variation in LER achieved because of utilization of resources in deferent planting patterns. In this study, the economic benefit of chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns was higher than that of mono chewing cane. The values of LER and net income showed that intercropping pattern CP2was the most advantageous than other planting patterns in producing high yields and profits under field conditions. Chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns not only enhanced the land use efficiency, but also improved the overall economic benefits of intercropping system.

5 Conclusions

Taken together, the results indicated that the chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns had no significant effect on sugarcane yield, and the economic benefit could be increased by chewing cane/peanut intercropping patterns significantly. The peanut yield was influenced by different peanut planting densities. The experiment results showed that CP2of two-row peanut with one row chewing cane would be more reasonable pattern in production and economic benefit. Intercropping system of chewing cane with peanut could simultaneously maintain crops productivity, improve soil utilization efficiency, thus, it can be suggested a reasonable practice for field cultivation.