| Literature DB >> 34354716 |
Zheng Peng1,2, Yan Zhang1, Binbin Yan1, Zhilai Zhan1, Xiulian Chi1, Yang Xu1,2, Xiuzhi Guo1, Xinping Cui1, Tielin Wang1, Sheng Wang1, Chuanzhi Kang1, Xiufu Wan1, Kai Sun1, Luqi Huang1, Lanping Guo1.
Abstract
Commercial cultivation of the medicinal plant Atractylodes lancea is significantly restricted by low survival rates and reduced yields. Intercropping can reasonably coordinate interspecific interactions, effectively utilize environmental resources, and increase survival and yield. We conducted a field experiment from 2014 to 2016 to analyze the advantages and effects of intercropping on A. lancea survival, growth traits, individual volatile oil content, and total volatile oil content. In addition to A. lancea monoculture (AL), five intercropping combinations were planted: Zea mays L. (ZM) + A. lancea, Tagetes erecta L. (TE) + A. lancea, Calendula officinalis L. (CO) + A. lancea, Glycine max (Linn.) Merr. (GM) + A. lancea, and Polygonum hydropiper L. (PH) + A. lancea. The survival and average rhizome weight of A. lancea was higher in the ZM, CO, and TE treatments than in the monoculture treatment, and the average plant height was higher in all intercropping treatments than in the monoculture. The volatile oil content of A. lancea from the ZM and CO treatments was significantly improved relative to that of monoculture plants. The volatile oil harvest was higher in the ZM, CO, and TE treatments than in the monoculture. We conclude that intercropping is an effective way to increase the survival and yield of A. lancea. Furthermore, intercropping with ZM, CO, and TE increases the harvest of four volatile oils from A. lancea.Entities:
Keywords: Atractylodes lancea (Thunb.) DC.; intercropping; production; survival; volatile oil
Year: 2021 PMID: 34354716 PMCID: PMC8330804 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.663730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Typical GC-MS chromatogram of several classical volatile oils presents in A. lancea.
FIGURE 2Effect of different intercropping treatments on the percentage survival of A. lancea in 2016. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the 5% significance level.
FIGURE 3Effect of different intercropping treatments on branch number (A), bud number (B), height (C), and fresh weight (D) of A. lancea in 2015 and 2016. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the 5% significance level.
FIGURE 4The effect of different intercropping treatments on the concentrations of four volatile oils from A. lancea in 2015 and 2016. Different capital (2015) and lowercase (2016) letters indicate significant differences at the 5% significance level, and asterisks indicate significant differences between 2015 and 2016 within individual treatments.
FIGURE 5The effect of different intercropping treatments on the contents of four volatile oils in 2015 and 2016. Different capital (2015) and lowercase (2016) letters indicate a significant difference at the 5% significance level, and asterisks indicate significant differences between 2015 and 2016 within individual treatments.
FIGURE 6The effect of different intercropping treatments on concentration (I) and content (II) of total volatile oils in 2015 and 2016. Different capital (2015) and lowercase (2016) letters indicate significant differences at the 5% significance level, and asterisks indicate significant differences between 2015 and 2016 within individual treatments.
| AL | 27.87 | 18.02 | 36.99 | 40.11 | 30.32 | 38.19 | 4.83 | 3.67 |
| ZM | 23.54 | 26.39 | 39.71 | 30.07 | 29.76 | 38.40 | 6.98 | 5.15 |
| GM | 8.11 | 20.89 | 56.36 | 32.58 | 30.99 | 41.03 | 4.54 | 5.50 |
| TE | 31.59 | 39.05 | 30.92 | 22.66 | 30.53 | 31.71 | 6.96 | 6.58 |
| CO | 30.32 | 18.58 | 33.23 | 35.61 | 31.35 | 39.91 | 5.10 | 5.89 |
| PH | 17.90 | 18.01 | 43.33 | 47.02 | 32.81 | 30.47 | 5.96 | 4.50 |
FIGURE 7The harvest of total volatile oils from different intercropping treatments in 2016.