Next Article in Journal
Adventitious Root Culture—An Alternative Strategy for Secondary Metabolite Production: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Nitrogen Reduction with Bio-Organic Fertilizer Altered Soil Microorganisms, Improved Yield and Quality of Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage (Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis Makino)
Previous Article in Journal
Ectopic Expression of Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) HcWRKY50 Improves Plants’ Tolerance to Drought Stress and Regulates ABA Signaling in Arabidopsis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reducing the Halotolerance Gap between Sensitive and Resistant Tomato by Spraying Melatonin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy12051179
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

The Effects of Catch Crops on Properties of Continuous Cropping Soil and Growth of Vegetables in Greenhouse

by
Yingbin Qi
1,2,3,4,
Rong Zhou
3,4,5,
Lanchun Nie
1,2,*,
Mintao Sun
6,
Xiaoting Wu
7 and
Fangling Jiang
3,4
1
College of Horticulture, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, China
2
Collaborative Innovation Center of Vegetative Industry of Hebei Province, Baoding 071000, China
3
College of Horticulture, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
4
Key Laboratory of Biology and Germplasm, Enhancement of Horticultural Crops in East China, Ministry of Agriculture, Nanjing 210095, China
5
Department of Food Science, Aarhus University, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark
6
The Institute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
7
College of Literature, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(5), 1179; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051179
Submission received: 19 March 2022 / Revised: 3 May 2022 / Accepted: 9 May 2022 / Published: 13 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Horticultural Plants Breeding for Abiotic Stress Tolerance)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Continuous cropping has become a key factor limiting the sustainable development of greenhouse vegetables. It is a matter of great importance to maintain and improve the effective fertility of greenhouse soil. Catch crops planted as green manure is an effective method to improve soil quality. In order to determine the effects of catch crops on soil characteristics and the growth of afterculture vegetables, onion, corn, wheat, soybean and cabbage were planted as catch crops for two years during the summer fallow season, with no catch crop as CK. The results showed that the total porosity and organic matter content of the soil, with corn and wheat as catch crops, was significantly increased by 2.93%, 5.25% and 21.32%, 51.61%, respectively, while pH was decreased, compared with CK. The urease, sucrase, invertase, catalase and FDA enzyme activity of the soil with corn and wheat as catch crops was significantly increased by 30.14% and 30.21%, 14.81% and 25.31%, 15.43% and 15.21%, 29.37% and 28.69%, 46.32% and 44.23%. Meanwhile, the enzyme activity of the soil was increased with each catch crop planted. The amount of culturable bacteria and actinomycetes in the soil with corn and wheat as catch crops was increased by 33.42% and 38.12% at the period of 150dayII, while fungi was decreased by 59.95%. The yield of vegetables with corn and wheat as catch crops significantly increased by 5.59~13.33% and 4.35~11.18% compared with CK. Overall, catch crops could improve the soil quality as well as the growth of afterculture vegetables.

1. Introduction

China has the largest greenhouse area in the world, since greenhouse vegetable cultivation has developed rapidly for whole-year production for economic benefit [1,2]. Greenhouses generate much more yield and income than open-field cultivation because of their more favorable environment for vegetable growth [3]. However, continuous cropping, a common practice in greenhouses, has caused obstacles to plant growth, such as secondary salination, imbalance in the soil’s nutrient supply and a serious environmental problem [4,5]. Meanwhile, the excessive application of mineral fertilizer leads to decreased soil quality [6,7] and reduced food quality [8]. In northern vegetable greenhouses, planting cover crops with the addition of catch crops in the summer fallow season (the high temperature is not suitable for growing vegetables), to a certain extent, can retain the original planting system, improve the soil environment and reduce continuous cropping obstacles [9].
The physical and chemical properties of soil are crucial for agricultural production and the sustainable use of agricultural land [10]. The incorporation of catch crops into soil increase its organic matter and total porosity, change the C/N and decrease the soil bulk density [11,12,13]. Soil enzymatic activity is an essential parameter of the soil quality [14], which can be enhanced by catch crops [12,15]. Meanwhile, catch crops affect the richness and diversity of soil microbial communities [16]. Soil microorganisms have crucial roles in the maintenance of soil health, sustainability, nutrient cycling and thus crop production [17,18].
Catch crops are important for sustainable agricultural development [19]. The effects of different catch crops are various. Sweet corn as a summer catch crop significantly increases nitrogen retention and reduces nitrogen leaching in protected vegetable production systems [5]. Exogenous N is added to the agroecosystem through atmospheric N2 fixation from legumes [20]. Wheat as a catch crop can increase soil fertility and plant yield [21]. Mustard, buckwheat and common cabbage as catch crops inhibit soil-borne diseases [22]. Root exudates of onion can directly affect the soil fungi and bacteria [23].
In this experiment, onion, corn, wheat, soybean and cabbage as catch crops were planted in the summer fallow season of the greenhouse. We hypothesized that catch crops could enhance the yield of vegetables by altering soil physicochemical properties. Our aim is to explore the change in soil physicochemical properties, enzyme activities, microbial biomass and the yield of afterculture vegetables through different catch crops. This study will provide theoretical support for improving greenhouse soil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Experiment Design

A protected cultivation experiment was conducted from July 2015 to June 2017 at the vegetable base of Dasima Manor, Qingxian County, Cangzhou City, Hebei Province (38°63′ N, 116°82′ E). The greenhouse was used to continuously plant vegetables for 20 years. The soil was saline, and the surface soil (0–20 cm) properties are shown in Table 1.
Seeds of five catch crops including onion (yellow onion), corn (zhengdan 958), wheat (hengmai 29), soy (zhonghuang 30) and cabbage (jinpin) were bought from the market. The seeds of cherry tomato (qianxi CL032), melon (boyang 61), eggplant (zilui 4) and pumpkin (beifen F1) were provided by the base.
The greenhouse in the experiment was built in 2005, which consisted of a common wall structure, with a length of 60 m, a width of 6.2 m and a total area of 372 m2. Six treatments were set up: onion, corn, wheat, soy and cabbage were five of the catch crops, with CK as a blank control (with no catch crop). Each treatment was set up with three repetitions, and each repetition’s area was 6 × 1.5 m with random block arrangement. The seed amount of each catch crop was 30 kg·ha−1, uniformly sewn for each repetition. The catch crops were planted from July to August in 2015 and July to August in 2016 at the same plot, respectively. Then, the overground part of the catch crops was crushed and overturned into the soil in August. Cherry tomato, melon, eggplant and pumpkin were planted from September to December 2015, January to June 2016, September to December 2016 and January to June 2017, respectively. The plant density of the vegetable species was 35 × 40 cm, with consistent management. The 300 kg ha−1 compound fertilizer (NPK (15:15:15)) was uniformly applied each time before the vegetable planting.

2.2. Determination Index and Method

There were four periods: the first and second periods, 30 days and 150 days after the catch crops were crushed and overturned into the soil, in 2015, are named 30dayI and 150dayI, respectively. The third and fourth periods, 30 days and 150 days after the catch crops were crushed and overturned into the soil, in 2016, are named 30dayII and 150dayII. Fresh soils were determined for soil enzyme activity and the soil cultivable microbial count. Air-dried and sieved (<2 mm) soils were used for chemical properties analyses.
Soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined by mixing soil with deionized water at 1:5 and 1:2.5 (w/v), respectively. The mixture was manually shaken for 30 min, and the reading was taken using pH meters (pH-400, Spectrum Technologies, Inc., Aurora, IL, USA) and an electrical conductivity meter (DDS-307A, Shanghai Yoke Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) [24]. Bulk density, total porosity and organic matter content of the soil were detected using the methods of Bao [25]. The activities of soil urease (expressed as mg NH4+-N g−1 soil d−1) and neutral phosphates (expressed as mg phenol g−1 soil d−1) were determined by indophenol blue colorimetric method and benzene disodium phosphate colorimetric method, respectively [25]. Sucrase activities (expressed as mg glucose g−1 soil d−1) and catalase (expressed as mg H2O2 g−1 soil d−1) were determined by 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetric method and potassium permanganate colorimetric method [26]. FDA (fluorescein diacetate, expressed as μg fluorescein g−1 soil h−1) activity was determined using the method described by Taylor [27].
The amounts of soil cultivable bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes were detected using the standard 10-fold dilution plating method. Specifically, beef extract medium was used for the characterization of total bacteria population, Martin medium for fungi and Gause NO. 1 medium for actinomycetes [28]. The data were expressed as the number of per gram dry soil.
Six plants were randomly selected from uniform plants in each plot in order to measure plant height, stem diameter, maximum leaf length and width of cherry tomato, melon, eggplant and pumpkin. The yields of the vegetables were the weight of all ripe fruits throughout the growing period.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data analyses were performed using SPSS software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) and Microsoft Excel 2010. The significance of differences between treatments was evaluated by Duncan’s new multiple range test (different small letters represented significant difference at 0.05, p < 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Soil Physical and Chemical Properties

The physical and chemical properties of soil with different treatments were different (Figure 1). When the catch crops were planted, the pH, EC and bulk density of the soil showed a trend of decreasing, except with CK. At the period of 150dayII, the pH, EC and bulk density of the soil with corn and wheat as catch crops was the lowest, 4.68% and, 4.74%, 15.41% and 16.66%, 12.41% and 13.34%, significantly lower than CK, respectively. On the contrary, when the catch crops were planted, the organic matter content and total porosity of the soil showed a trend of increasing, except with CK. At 150dayII period, the soil organic matter content and total porosity of corn and wheat as catch crops was the highest, at 56.98%, 57.61%, 5.36% and 5.25%, significantly higher than CK. This showed that the physical and chemical properties of soil were improved by catch crops, particularly corn and wheat as catch crops.

3.2. Soil Enzyme Activities

The soil sucrase, neutral phosphates, catalase and FDA enzyme activities of CK all decreased, except urease (Figure 2). With the catch crops planted, urease, sucrase, neutral phosphates, catalase and FDA enzyme activities of the soil showed a trend of increasing. At the period of 150dayII, the five soil enzymes, urease, sucrase, neutral phosphates, catalase and FDA enzyme activities of the soil with corn and wheat as catch crops were the highest, at 30.14% and 30.21%, 14.81% and 25.31%, 15.43% and 15.21%, 29.37% and 28.69%, 46.32% and 44.23%, significantly higher than CK.

3.3. The Amounts of Soil Cultivable Bacteria, Actinomycetes and Fungi

All the treatments increased the amount of soil cultivable bacteria (Figure 3). The soil-cultivable bacteria amount of corn and wheat as catch crops was the highest. At the period of 30dayI, this was 17.15% and 17.33%, significantly higher than CK, and at the period of 150dayII, it was 33.42% and 38.12% significantly higher than CK. The amount of soil-cultivable actinomycetes increased with the catch crops planted. At the period of 150dayII, the soil cultivable actinomycetes amounts of corn and wheat as catch crops were the highest. At the period of 30dayI, the amount of soil-cultivable fungi with the treatment of wheat as a catch crop was the highest and was 28.02% higher than CK. At the period of 150dayII, the amounts of soil-cultivable fungi with all treatments were significantly lower than CK, of which corn as the catch crop was the lowest, 59.95% lower than CK. The soil-cultivable fungi amount with all treatments, at the period of 150dayII, was lower than at the period of 30dayI. This showed that cultivable bacteria and actinomycetes amounts were increased by catch crops; on the contrary, the amount of soil cultivable fungi was decreased, particularly the treatment of corn and wheat as catch crops.

3.4. The Growth and Yield of the Vegetables

Catch crops could promote the growth and yield of vegetables (Table 2, Figure 4). The plant height and stem diameter of the four vegetables with corn and wheat as catch crops was significantly higher than CK. The yields of cherry tomato, melon, eggplant and pumpkin were 13.33% and 11.66%, 5.59% and 4.35%, 12.94% and 11.18%, 12.94% and 11.18% with the treatment of corn and wheat as catch crops, significantly higher than CK. There was no significant difference between other treatments.

4. Discussion

In the vegetable greenhouse during the summer fallow season, catch crops cultivation reduced nitrate leaching, decreased soil bulk density and increased soil C and N content [6,8,11]. When being incorporated into the soil, catch crops biomass become the organic matter precursor, enhance the intensity of microbiological processes and improving the soil enzymatic activity [29,30]. Furthermore, soil enzyme activity is positively correlated with soil organic matter content [10]. Catch crops contributed to the formation of the soil’s organic matter, which, in turn, induced greater soil loosening (soil bulk density, soil total porosity and soil compaction) [13]. Analyzing the results of our research, we note that the soil’s total porosity and soil organic matter content treated by catch crops, particularly corn and wheat, were significantly enhanced compared with CK. In contrast, the pH was decreased (Figure 1). Meanwhile, the pH, EC and bulk density of the soil made a trend of decreasing with the number of catch crops that were planted. Total porosity and organic matter showed a trend of increasing. It could be seen that the effect of catch crops on soil was sustainable. Catch crops improve soil moisture and thermal conditions, while these, in turn, determine soil enzymatic activity [31]. Harasim et al. [13] found that catch crops mixed with legumes (faba bean + spring vetch) promoted improved soil structure, soil particle-size distribution, soil bulk density and soil moisture content, and the activities of soil urease and catalase enzymes significantly increased. Qian et al. [32] found that straw returning significantly increased soil urease, catalase and phosphates activity. The study showed that all five catch crops could increase the soil enzyme activity. At the period of 150dayII, urease, sucrase, neutral phosphates, catalase and FDA enzyme activities of the soil with corn and wheat as catch crops were the highest. Meanwhile, the soil enzyme increased with the number of catch crops planted (Figure 2).
Soil microorganisms are the key factors associated with soil quality, fertility and productivity [33,34]. Accordingly, the amount and species of soil microorganisms affect the growth, development and health status of plants [35]. Tian et al. [36] found that planting Welsh onion as a cover crop in the summer fallow period and rotating vegetable chrysanthemum and tomato could increase the amount of bacteria and decrease the amounts of fungi. Zhang et al. [37] found that the continuous cropping of cucumber in a greenhouse for 30 years accumulates a lot of nutrients in soils, and green soybean and peanut increase the microbial diversity and reduce NO3-N contents. In the experiment, we noted that corn and wheat as catch crops significantly increased the amounts of soil cultivable bacteria and actinomycetes compared with CK (Figure 3). At the period of 150dayII, the amount of soil-cultivable fungi with all treatments was significantly lower than in CK. However, we only studied the amounts of soil culturable bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes. The effects of different catch crops on soil microbial diversity would be studied in the next step.
Wheat as a catch crop increased soil fertility and crop yield [21,38]. Sweet corn significantly increased nitrogen retention and reduced nitrogen leaching as summer catch crop in protected vegetable production systems [5]. Analyzing the results of our own research, we note that catch crops could promote the growth and yield of vegetables (Table 2, Figure 4). The yield of cherry tomato, melon, eggplant and pumpkin with the treatments of corn and wheat as catch crops significantly increased compared with CK. Catch crops appear to increase the physicochemical properties of soil, enhance the soil enzyme activity and ultimately provide a favorable environment for the growth of vegetables. Previous research has shown that root exudates of catch crops promote the increase in soil microbial biomass and diversity, as well as the growth of plants [39,40,41]. Meanwhile, we found that the effect of catch crops was persistent, and the growth of multiple plants was affected by catch crops. Similar results were reported by Acua and Villamil [42] and Wu et al. [9].
In the experiment, we studied the effects of different catch crops on the soil quality of greenhouses and the growth of vegetables, systematically. Catch crops increased the quality of soil and the growth of vegetables, particularly with corn and wheat as catch crops. Organic matter content was increased, pH was decreased and the amounts of culturable bacteria and actinomycetes of the soil were increased. Thus, the activities of soil enzymes was increased, and ultimately, the growth of vegetables was promoted by catch crops. Ideal catch crops possess the capacity of a short growth period, rapid growth rates, high biomass and strong absorbability of soil mineral N [43]. Corn and wheat as catch crops exactly fit the requirements. Possibly, this was the reason for corn and wheat being the best choice for catch crops.

5. Conclusions

Onion, corn, wheat, soybean and cabbage as catch crops, particularly corn and wheat, could enhance the yield of vegetables by altering soil physicochemical properties. Organic matter content and total porosity were increased, while pH, EC and bulk density were decreased. Additionally, corn and wheat as catch crops significantly increased the activities of soil urease, sucrase, invertase, catalase and FDA enzyme. The amounts of culturable bacteria and actinomycetes of the soil were increased by catch crops, and in contrast, fungi decreased. Overall, corn and wheat as catch crops have potential; they could increase the quality of greenhouse soil and promote the growth of vegetables. This study will provide theoretical support for improving greenhouse soil and the effects on soil microbial diversity should be studied in the next step.

Author Contributions

Y.Q. and L.N. designed the experiments. Y.Q. performed the experiments. Y.Q. analyzed the data. Y.Q. wrote the manuscript. R.Z., F.J., M.S. and X.W. gave valuable comments on the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Hebei Vegetables Innovation Team of Modern Agroindustry Technology Research System, grant number: HBCT2013050201.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liang, B.; Kang, L.; Ren, T.; Li, J.; Chen, Q.; Wang, J. The impact of exogenous N supply on soluble organic nitrogen dynamics and nitrogen balance in a greenhouse vegetable system. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 154, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, G. The problems caused by monoculture and the solutions in protected vegetables cultivation. Chin. J. Hebei Agric. Sci. 2006, 10, 106–108. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  4. Guo, R.; Qin, W.; Jiang, C.; Kang, L.; Nendel, C.; Chen, Q. Sweet corn significantly increases nitrogen retention and reduces nitrogen leaching as summer catch crop in protected vegetable production systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 180, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, H.; Hu, K.; Zhang, L.; Ji, Y.; Qin, W. Exploring optimal catch crops for reducing nitrate leaching in vegetable greenhouse in North China. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 212, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ozlu, E.; Kumar, S. Response of surface GHG fluxes to long-term manure and inorganic fertilizer application in corn and soybean rotation. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 817–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ozlu, E.; Sandhu, S.S.; Kumar, S.; Arriaga, F.J. Soil health indicators impacted by long-term cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer application in a corn-soybean rotation of South Dakota. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ye, L.; Zhao, X.; Bao, E.; Li, J.; Zou, Z.; Cao, K. Bio-organic fertilizer with reduced rates of chemical fertilization improves soil fertility and enhances tomato yield and quality. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wu, F.; Fang, Z.; Tian, Z.; Dong, J.; Gao, L. Effects of cover crops usage on growth and yield of pepper seedlings. J. Northeast Agric. Univ. 2022, 53, 8–15. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. Almendro-Candel, M.; Gómez, L.; Navarro-Pedreño, J.; Zorpas, A. Physical properties of soils affected by the use of agricul-tural waste. Agric. Waste Residues 2018, 2, 9. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hubbard, R.K.; Strickland, T.C.; Phatak, S. Effects of cover crop systems on soil physical properties and carbon/nitrogen relationships in the coastal plain of southeastern USA. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Irmak, S.; Sharma, V.; Mohammed, A.; Djaman, K. Impacts of Cover Crops on Soil Physical Properties: Field Capacity, Permanent Wilting Point, Soil-Water Holding Capacity, Bulk Density, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Infiltration. Trans. ASABE 2018, 61, 1307–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Harasim, E.; Antonkiewicz, J.; Kwiatkowski, C.A. The Effects of Catch Crops and Tillage Systems on Selected Physical Properties and Enzymatic Activity of Loess Soil in a Spring Wheat Monoculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wang, A.S.; Angle, J.S.; Chaney, R.L.; Delorme, T.A.; McIntosh, M. Changes in soil biological activities under reduced soil pH during Thlaspi caerulescens phytoextraction. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1451–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kwiatkowski, C.; Harasim, E.; Wesołowski, M. Effects of catch crops and tillage system on weed infestation and health of spring wheat. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 999–1012. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, S.; Gao, D.; Guo, X.; Zhou, X.; Wu, F. Effects of different summer cover crops and residue management on plant growth and soil microbial community. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 1350–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Der Heijden, M.G.A.; Bardgett, R.D.; Van Straalen, N.M. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 296–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: Disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Weil, R.; Kremen, A. Thinking across and beyond disciplines to make cover crops pay. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 87, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peoples, M.B.; Herridge, D.; Ladha, J. Biological nitrogen fixation: An efficient source of nitrogen for sustainable agricultural production? Plant Soil 1995, 174, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schipanski, M.E.; Barbercheck, M.; Douglas, M.R.; Finney, D.M.; Haider, K.; Kaye, J.P.; Kemanian, A.R.; Mortensen, D.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Tooker, J.; et al. A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 2014, 125, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wiggins, B.E.; Kinkel, L.L. Green Manures and Crop Sequences Influence Potato Diseases and Pathogen Inhibitory Activity of Indigenous Streptomycetes. Phytopathology 2005, 95, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Tsao, S.-M.; Yin, M.-C. In-vitro antimicrobial activity of four diallyl sulphides occurring naturally in garlic and Chinese leek oils. J. Med Microbiol. 2001, 50, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Xu, N.; Tan, G.; Wang, H.; Gai, X. Effect of biochar additions to soil on nitrogen leaching, microbial biomass and bacterial community structure. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2016, 74, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bao, S.D. Analysis Method of Soil and Agricultural Chemistry; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 2000; pp. 25–308. [Google Scholar]
  26. Guan, S. Methodology of soil enzyme measurement. In Methods of Soil Enzymology; Guan, Y., Ed.; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 1986; pp. 201–314. [Google Scholar]
  27. Taylor, J.P.; Wilson, B.; Mills, M.S.; Burns, R.G. Comparison of microbial numbers and enzymatic activities in surface soils and subsoils using various techniques. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yao, K.; Huang, Y. Soil Microbial Ecology and Its Experimental Techniques; Science Press Beijing: Beijing, China, 2006; pp. 2–180. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bielińska, E.; Mocek-Płóciniak, A. Impact of the Tillage System on the Soil Enzymatic Activity. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2012, 38, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ozlu, E.; Kumar, S. Response of soil organic carbon, pH, electrical conductivity, and water stable aggregates to long-term annual manure and inorganic fertilizer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2018, 82, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wallenstein, M.D.; Haddix, M.L.; Lee, D.D.; Conant, R.T.; Paul, E.A. A litter-slurry technique elucidates the key role of enzyme production and microbial dynamics in temperature sensitivity of organic matter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 47, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qian, H.; Yang, B.; Huang, G.; Yan, Y.; Fan, Z.; Fang, Y. Effects of returning rice straw to fields with fertilizers and microorganism liquids on soil enzyme activities and microorganisms in paddy fields. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2012, 21, 440–445. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Beckers, B.; Op De Beeck, M.; Weyens, N.; Boerjan, W.; Vangronsveld, J. Structural variability and niche differentiation in the rhizosphere and endosphere bacterial microbiome of field-grown poplar trees. Microbiome 2017, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Blagodatskaya, E.; Kuzyakov, Y. Active microorganisms in soil: Critical review of estimation criteria and approaches. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 67, 192–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Berendsen, R.L.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Bakker, P.A.H.M. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tian, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Chen, Q.; Gao, L. Microbial properties of rhizosphere soils as affected by rotation, grafting, and soil sterilization in intensive vegetable production systems. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 123, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, X.; Tian, L.; Wu, P.; Gao, Y.; Li, J. Changes of soil nutrients and microbial community diversity in responses to different growth environments and cultivation practices in 30 years. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2015, 21, 1581–1589. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Snapp, S.S.; Swinton, S.M.; Labarta, R.; Mutch, D.; Black, J.R.; Leep, R.; Nyiraneza, J.; O′Neil, K. Evaluating Cover Crops for Benefits, Costs and Performance within Cropping System Niches. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guo, R.; Li, X.; Christie, P.; Chen, Q.; Jiang, R.; Zhang, F. Influence of root zone nitrogen management and a summer catch crop on cucumber yield and soil mineral nitrogen dynamics in intensive production systems. Plant Soil 2008, 313, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Du Fall, L.A.; Solomon, P.S. Role of Cereal Secondary Metabolites Involved in Mediating the Outcome of Plant-Pathogen Interactions. Metabolites 2011, 1, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Tian, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Gao, L. Effects of summer cover crop and residue management on cucumber growth in intensive Chinese production systems: Soil nutrients, microbial properties and nematodes. Plant Soil 2010, 339, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Acuña, J.C.M.; Villamil, M.B. Short-Term Effects of Cover Crops and Compaction on Soil Properties and Soybean Production in Illinois. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 860–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Thorup-Kristensen, K.; Nielsen, N.E. Modelling and measuring the effect of nitrogen catch crops on the nitrogen supply for succeeding crops. Plant Soil 1998, 203, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 01179 g001 550
Figure 1. Effects of different catch crops on soil physical and chemical characters. pH (a), EC (b), Bulk density (c), Total porosity (d), Organic matter (e). CK–blank control with no catch crop.
Figure 1. Effects of different catch crops on soil physical and chemical characters. pH (a), EC (b), Bulk density (c), Total porosity (d), Organic matter (e). CK–blank control with no catch crop.
Agronomy 12 01179 g001
Agronomy 12 01179 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of different catch crops on soil-enzyme activities. Urease activity (a), Sucrase activity (b), Neutral phosphates activity (c), Catalase activity (d), Organic matter (e). FDA–fluorescein diacetate, expressed as μg fluorescein g−1 soil h−1.
Figure 2. Effects of different catch crops on soil-enzyme activities. Urease activity (a), Sucrase activity (b), Neutral phosphates activity (c), Catalase activity (d), Organic matter (e). FDA–fluorescein diacetate, expressed as μg fluorescein g−1 soil h−1.
Agronomy 12 01179 g002
Agronomy 12 01179 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of different catch crops on amounts of soil cultivable bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi. Bacteria (a), Actinomycetes (b), Fungi (c). Different small letters represent significant difference at 0.05 level by Duncan’s test.
Figure 3. Effects of different catch crops on amounts of soil cultivable bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi. Bacteria (a), Actinomycetes (b), Fungi (c). Different small letters represent significant difference at 0.05 level by Duncan’s test.
Agronomy 12 01179 g003
Agronomy 12 01179 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of different catch crops on the yield of vegetables. Different small letters represent significant difference at 0.05 level by Duncan’s test.
Figure 4. Effects of different catch crops on the yield of vegetables. Different small letters represent significant difference at 0.05 level by Duncan’s test.
Agronomy 12 01179 g004
Table
Table 1. The basic soil properties.
Table 1. The basic soil properties.
pHBulk Density
g cm−1		Electric Conductivity
mS cm−1		Organic
Matter
g kg−1		Total N
g kg−1		Alkali Hydrolyzed Nitrogen
mg kg−1		Available
Phosphorus
mg kg−1		Available
Potassium
mg kg−1
8.121.301.3218.561.40158.50109.27169.00
Table
Table 2. Effects of different catch crops on the growth of vegetables.
Table 2. Effects of different catch crops on the growth of vegetables.
VegetableTreatmentPlant Height
cm		Stem Diameter
mm		Leaf Length
cm		Leaf Width
cm
TomatoCK137.46 ± 4.31 b9.08 ± 0.74 c48.15 ± 2.12 b43.30 ± 2.01 b
Onion139.15 ± 3.20 b10.24 ± 0.85 b49.10 ± 2.01 ab43.67 ± 1.87 b
Corn141.2 ± 1.28 b10.31 ± 0.65 ab50.25 ± 2.98 a44.73 ± 3.45 a
Wheat158.15 ± 5.71 a10.89 ± 0.41 ab48.90 ± 3.01ab44.85 ± 2.01 a
Soy122.9 ± 3.04 c10.33 ± 0.88 ab45.21 ± 1.98 c43.13 ± 1.80 b
Cabbage142.35 ± 1.87 b11.24 ± 1.07 a45.85 ± 2.07 c42.03 ± 2.75 c
MelonCK212.12 ± 5.87 b10.76 ± 0.65 b32.95 ± 1.65 b23.50 ± 1.02 ab
Onion215.27 ± 8.71 b10.74 ± 0.47 b33.04 ± 1.98 b24.03 ± 0.87 ab
Corn226.53 ± 7.12 a11.28 ± 0.87 ab33.16 ± 1.21 b23.37 ± 1.44 ab
Wheat226.15 ± 4.34 a11.75 ± 0.24 a34.17 ± 1.74 a24.31 ± 2.00 a
Soy218.50 ± 4.17 ab10.89 ± 0.87 ab33.36 ± 2.09 b23.60 ± 1.81 ab
Cabbage219.14 ± 4.21 ab10.72 ± 0.74 b33.86a ± 0.98 b22.63 ± 0.87 b
EggplantCK109.12 ± 2.07 b15.10 ± 0.89 b39.99 ± 2.01 b29.97 ± 0.54 c
Onion109.24 ± 3.21 b15.03 ± 1.45 b39.80 ± 2.34 b29.91 ± 1.54 c
Corn112.08 ± 2.01 a15.64 ± 1.89 a41.22 ± 2.78 a31.02 ± 1.55 a
Wheat113.19 ± 2.22 a15.62 ± 1.98 a41.64 ± 1.87 a30.97 ± 1.95 a
Soy109.48 ± 2.14 b15.17 ± 1.64 b40.11 ± 1.02 b30.41 ± 1.74 b
Cabbage109.01 ± 0.87 b14.96 ± 1.44 b40.03 ± 1.12 b29.89 ± 1.07 c
Pumpkin CK195.32 ± 4.54 c9.10 ± 0.85 b27.06 ± 0.87 c25.50 ± 0.87 b
Onion194.11 ± 4.78 c9.40 ± 0.65 b27.80 ± 1.02 b25.37 ± 1.47 b
Corn212.03 ± 5.67 a10.21 ± 0.79 a28.22 ± 1.32 a26.58 ± 2.07 a
Wheat210.34 ± 7.43 a10.35 ± 1.26 a28.34 ± 0.96 a26.66 ± 2.14 a
Soy205.28 ± 4.21 b9.12 ± 0.87 b27.61 ± 1.01 b25.49 ± 1.54 b
Cabbage197.06 ± 3.23 c9.06 ± 0.80 b27.08 ± 0.88 c25.61 ± 1.12 b
Note: Different small letters represented significant difference at 0.05 level by Duncan’s test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qi, Y.; Zhou, R.; Nie, L.; Sun, M.; Wu, X.; Jiang, F. The Effects of Catch Crops on Properties of Continuous Cropping Soil and Growth of Vegetables in Greenhouse. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051179

AMA Style

Qi Y, Zhou R, Nie L, Sun M, Wu X, Jiang F. The Effects of Catch Crops on Properties of Continuous Cropping Soil and Growth of Vegetables in Greenhouse. Agronomy. 2022; 12(5):1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051179

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi, Yingbin, Rong Zhou, Lanchun Nie, Mintao Sun, Xiaoting Wu, and Fangling Jiang. 2022. "The Effects of Catch Crops on Properties of Continuous Cropping Soil and Growth of Vegetables in Greenhouse" Agronomy 12, no. 5: 1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051179

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop