Content uploaded by Jamal Nasar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jamal Nasar on Feb 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 1/8
Review Article
ISSN: 2574 -1241
Intercropping Induce Changes in Above and Below
Ground Plant Compartments in Mixed Cropping
System
Jamal Nasar*1, Ashfaq Alam2, Aisha Nasar3 and Muhammad Zubair Khan4
1College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China
2Department of Horticulture, Pakistan
3Government Degree College, Pakistan
4College of agronomy, China
*Corresponding author: Jamal Nasar, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences/Key Laboratory of Sustainable Utilization
of Soil Resources in the Commodity Grain Bases in Jilin Province, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun 130118, China
DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
Received: April 29, 2019
Published: May 07, 2019
Citation: Jamal Nasar, Ashfaq Alam,
Aisha Nasar, Muhammad Zubair Khan.
Intercropping Induce Changes in Above
and Below Ground Plant Compartments
in Mixed Cropping System. Biomed
J Sci & Tech Res 17(5)-2019. BJSTR.
MS.ID.003054.
Keywords: Complementary; Competi-
tions; Mixed Cropping; Intercropping
ARTICLE INFO abstract
Crops growing in a mixture is an ancient agricultural practice and usually been
population food demand. The two crops growing on same soil zone may be in direct
competition to utilize the available resources because planting plants on same land using
the same resources for normal growth. In intercropping system there may be facilitative
and competitive interaction among the plants in both above and below ground plants
compartments. The intension of intercropping is to utilize the use of physical, temporal
and spatial resources both above and below ground plant compartments by maximizing
the complementary interaction and minimizing the competitive ones. The changes and
complex interaction both in upper and underground plant parts in inter-cropping system
those adopted by local farmers in China are not yet fully understood. Information’s from
such studies are likely to provide knowledge about the complex interactions among two
crops growing in a mixture. This study was therefore assessed to perceive how plants in
mixture change the above below ground compartments and how they interact.
Introduction
Intercropping is an old cropping system which dates back to
ancient civilization and practice globally to achieve more yields
and to satisfy the world food demand [1-6]. Mix cropping system
not only enhance crop production and returns but can help safe
the plants from complete failure as compare to mono-cropping [2].
plant growth resources like water [3], nutrients [4], and sun light
and to minimize the competition and control weeds, disease and
pest incidences [5]. The facilitations occurs both above and below
ground plant compartments when plants using the same soil zone
[7,8]. Cereal-legumes intercropping is common cropping system
in which cereal get growth and yield advantages from legumes
by sharing nutrients and some other unknown resources [1,9]. It
is well known that plants growing in mixture interact with each
both positively and negatively in the above and below ground plant
compartments. The above plants facilitative integrations are well
investigated, however what’s going inside in the below ground
plants-soil and plant-plant in mix cropping system are still not clear
[9-11]. Rhizospheric plant roots, soil and microbial interactions are
play a vital role in plant nutrition [12,13].
To date, the below ground interactions in intercropping and its
effect on plant growth acquired a little attention [9-11]. To achieve
greater yield, improve rhizospheric microbial conditions, soil quality
betterment, resources utilization, soil nutrients recycling, proper
management practices require in mixed cultures [14]. Though
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 2/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
cereals and legumes grown singly are highly investigated but few
researches are available on the complex mixed cropping system
specially on the below ground plant compartments (rizhosphere
interactions), hence more studies are require explore the fact about
rhizospheric soil in intercropping [9]. The intension of growing
interactions) resources and curtail competitions both in the
literatures are available on the on the below ground mechanism
involved in mix cropping system those practice by traditional
farmers [9,11] because it’s complexity in mixed cropping system
rhizosphere. This study is therefore design to collect information
for understanding above and below ground interaction in crop
mixtures (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Nitrogen xation, transfer and the role of microorganisms in cereal legumes intercropping system (Xue et al. 2016).
Plant to Plant Interaction in Intercropping
Plants intract with each other in mixed cropping system for
improving their growth and yield. However, little knowledge is
available plants interactions growing in mixture , particularly
interactions both facilitative and competitive contribute to high
yielding [23]. However, the below-ground root interactions are
highly responsible for yield betterment [23]. In mixed cropping
system, crops will be in direct competitions while capturing
the same resources. Whereas, the differences can only occur in
phonological characteristics which results improving limited plant
growth resources among plants species [15-20,22] and maximize
plant productiveness when compare to single culture [15,16,24-
32]. Hence, legumes/cereal mixture interactions (facilitative &
competitive) are complicated to examine [33-36] in utilization and
address the interactions (above & below ground) in traditional
cropping mixture.
Rhizospheric interaction in intercropping
In intercropping system both plant species uses the same soil
zone for root resources which directly associated with growth per-
formance [16,37-39]. Under such situations, roots nutrients com-
petitions are frequently happen. Previously documented that the
below ground activities in maize/cowpea mixture occur at a soil
depth of 30-45cm and at more depth shows decreased in theirs
in maize crop than cowpea [26]. Apart from that side effect on plant
yield, plant and soil were positively affected by mixed cropping roots
system, for example increased the availability of carbon through C
transformation [41,42], phonolics discharge, root exudates (phyo-
siderophores and carboxylic acids) in plant parts [12,13].
These elements are responsible for plants mineral nutrition.
Additionally several research on the low phosphorous soil has
shown that plant roots (pigeon pea) use piscidic, malonic and
oxalic acid to solubilize iron, calcium, and Al-bond P [43]. Once
phosphorous and iron mobilized, readily available for plant
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 3/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
acquisition and available for microorganisms in an intercropping.
Similarly buckwheat roots discharge oxalate as an Al-oxakate in Al
toxic soil which change Aluminum to plants and microorganisms
available form in mixed cropping [44]. Under such circumstances
crop productiveness can be increased when grown in a mixture.
Similar activities in underground plant parts are occur in all
intercropping system use by all farmers. Although there has been
relatively little research on below ground activities in crop mixture
so more studies are need to be established. So far the competition
among plants for utilizing light and water resources has been
studied earlier but research on nutrients competition in cropping
mixture are rare [8-11]. Thus, more experiments are suggested to
investigate more about the nutrient competitions between plants in
cereal/legumes mixture (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The g shows the below ground interspecic root interaction, rhizhospheric changes, nutrients transport, uptake and
facilitation in intercropping system (Xue et al. 2016).
Rhizospheric pH Changes in Intercropping System
Several plants have the capability to change their rhizospheric
soil pH [12,45-49] and convert P, K, Ca, and Mg to available form,
[7,50]. For example many reactions occur in the rhizosphere of
uptake and acquisition [51-53]. As previously, [54] documented
that as the rhizospheric soil pH changes the plant nutrients
availability was increased up to 45-120% P, 108-161% K, 120-
148% Ca, 127-225% Mg and 117-250% B in cropping mixture (tea/
Cyclopia genistoids) in South Africa. Hence, in balancing internal
processing pluses may absorb more base cations and release H+
Various leguminous crop like alfalfa, cowpea, lupine and chickpea
can lower their rhizospheric soil pH because of releasing some
considerable amount of organic anions [56-62] and enhance the
organic P availability to plants and soil microorganisms. Similarly
white lupine (lupinus albus) in sole cropping can lower their
rhizospheric soil pH due to the release of organic anions and
proton which recovered considerable amount of P from soil and
increased its availability to next crop (wheat) [63,64]. Likewise,
peagon pea when intercropped with sorghum increased P uptake
by exuding piscidic acid anions that chelated Fe3+ and subsequently
released P from FePO4
can be improved by intercropped with faba bean [8,65-67]. In
contrast, chickpeas has the potential to mobilize organic P proved
to be superior to that of corn due to greater exudation of protons
and organic acids by chickpea compared to maize [62]. Hence,
plants in a mixture those cereals do not have strong rhizhosphere
for nutrients solubilization. It is however not clear that what
changes the rhizosphere pH in mix culture those involving legumes
and cereal and their effect on different soil chemical and biological
reactions.
N2 xation, N Uptake and N Transfer in Cereal/Legumes
Intercropping
Nitrogen is key element required for plants normal growth
and productivity. More research are available on the biological
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 4/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
able to acquire almost 75 % of their nitrogen requirement from
atmosphere [71,72]. Nevertheless, less study on the biological
nutrients advantage [74,75]. Nitrogen uptake in mix cropping
system enhances the nutrients status of associated crops. This N
facilitation in intercropping system may be due to that, leguminous
available or transfer to associated cereal crop by direct root contact
or exudation and mycorrhizal association and thus improve the N2
cereal with legumes under low fertilization improve the N nutrient
in cereal and thus overyield [50].
Previously documented that different cropping system like
wheat/soybean, maize/faba bean, barley/pea and sorghum/
cropping system [77-79]. The atmospheric N taken up by faba bean
(full maturity stage) than monocropped faba bean [80]. The 15N
labeling techniques are using for direct transfer of N from legumes
to neighboring non-legume plant in intercropping system, legumes
crop grown in a mixture [68,69,73,82,83]. Thereby increased the
soil N content [36,84,85]. In mixed culture, planting legumes at
long distance from non-legumes may lead to decreasing N transfer.
In past researcher declared that N competition in legumes/cereal
an important study to expose the effect of planting mixtures on
Soil Microbial Biomass in Intercropping
physio-chemical and biological characteristics those involve in
an intercropping system. In general, soil microbial C is highly
affected by different agricultural practices [87-89]. For example,
the farm-land and grass land found to be higher in soil microbial
C than uncultivated lands [87,90]. Intercropping in comparison
with single cropping is expected more suitable cropping pattern
for increasing soil microbial biomass. The intercropping of durum
wheat with legumes like chickpea, lentil increased the soil microbial
biomass [91]. Studies on the legumes has shown that these plants
are capable to increase soil microbial C than cereal [92], tend to
reduce carbon to nitrogen ratio in legumes compare to cereals. The
microbial biomass activities can further be increase by adding any
energy sources to soil. Higher microbial biomass activities can be
expected in soil by natural manuring than commercial fertilization
[93,94]. Soil microbial biomass activity and organic matter are
responsible factors for improving soil nutrients status, fertility and
productiveness and can be enhanced by additional organic sources
the soil microbial biomass can be boost in a result plant growth
and soil organic matter can also be improve [93]. The biological
soil activity in legumes/cereal mixture results in improving
research attention. Although soil-microbes relationship has been
considerable investigated but few literature are available on such
studies those practice in humid regions [95]. In this prospective,
useful information can acquire by measuring these activities in a
relation to soil health in diverse cropping system.
Phosphatase Activity, P Acquisition and P Uptake in
Intercropping
[43,63,96]. Soil contains phosphorous mostly in organic which
cannot directly taken up by the plant [97]. Plants can acquire
the phosphorus after hydrolyzed by below ground microbes and
phosphotase activities release by plant roots. Different biochemical
processes and release of carboxylates, protons and enzymes from
the roots of P-moblizing plants can mobilize the organic and
culture [98]. In P-impoverished soil, some species form dauciform
roots or cluster roots [98]. It reviewed earlier that Dauciform
roots or cluster roots exude carboxylates and mobilize soluble P
in soil increased P acquisition and supply P to neighbor plant in
inter-rhizosphere those of cereal and legumes. The P-moblizing
crop promisingly improved the phosphorous acquisition of cereal
when inter cropped together [44,96]. Chickpea P facilitation for its
associated intercrop plant are more prominent because of its high
release rhizospheric acid phosphatases which convert organic P to
inorganic [34]. Faba bean can facilitate its neighboring plants with
P by mobilizing P through release of protons, malate and citrate
intercropping sytem helps reducing the in-P fertilization in agro-
ecosytem [96].
The root exudation in mixed cropping system improve the
Piscidic acid, citrate, protons and acid phosphatase activities which
helping in P mobilization and thus P acquisition by neighboring
plant (cereals) [43,63,96,100]. The inter-rhizospher processes
possibly facilitate the P to associated cereal in intercropping
system [101]. Previously demonstrated that P concentrations both
in above shoot and below roots and plants P utake were increased
when maize were intercropped with faba bean [34,98]. Crops
can survive under low phosphate availability because of different
enzymatic and morphological abilities conversion of phosphtases
which tend to increase in P starvation condition [102-109] but
low P availability adversely affect the N2
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 5/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
Phosphatese enzyme is a key factor involving in soil fertility and
performs different functions [110-112]. This enzyme is more likely
to increase in low P soils [59,113-116], a comparative research on
the acid phosphotase activity in white lupin root growing in high
and low phosphorus soils show that acid phosphotase activity both
higher. Under different stress level these phosphatase enzyme are
able to releae phosphate from cells [104,117]. The increasing rate
optimize P uptake [118-130]. These enzymatic and completion of
P starvation are considered to be managed by common P stress-
The secreted plant acid phosphate amount is genetically
controlled; differ at plant to plant [124] and various cropping
techniques [126-127]. Different experimental results showed
that legumes plants discharge more enzymes compare to grain
crop as for instance [128] in their experiment observed that the
enzyme secretion by legumes was 72% higher than that of cereals.
The amount of enzyme secrete by chickpea root was higher than
maize plant [62]. In biological manage system phosphate activity
expected to be higher because of high carbon present in the system.
As these activity of was found to be correlated with OM in different
studies [129, 130]. Hence mix cropping practices is expected to
induce P-stress in the rhizosphere, in a result different enzymes
excretion may be occur. Till now a little research on the impact of
mix cropping system on phosphatase activity in the rhizosphere
are available. It is crucial to understand the rhizosphere enzyme
activities, nutrients acquisitions by such activities and their effect
on the plants growth and yield in mix cropping system.
Conclusion
system provide facilitative interaction both in upper and
underground plant ecosystems which contribute promote crop
productivity and nutrients acquisitions. More ever the below ground
interactions in mixed cropping system play better role than above
interactions. For better crop productivity and growth improvement
future research should focus on the below ground plants roots, soil
and microbial interactions those involve in mix cropping system.
Studies on the micronutrients acquition in intercropping system
are less available so such research are encourage to investigate the
micronutrients acquision, transformation and uptake in both above
and below ground plant parts and the role rhizpheric microbial
community.
References
1. Vandermeer J (1990) Intercropping. Intercropping 481-516.
2. Zhang F, Li L (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in
intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use
3. Connolly J, HC Goma, K Rahim (2001) The information content of
indicators in intercropping research. Agriculture, ecosystems &
environment 87(2): 191-207.
4.
phosphorous fertilizer rates in the faba bean/maize intercropping. In
Proceedings of 2 nd International Symposium on phosphorous dynamics
in the soil plant continuum 26(3): 21-26.
5. Zhang F (2004) An overview of rhizosphere processes related with plant
nutrition in major cropping systems in China. Plant and Soil 260(1-2):
89-99.
6. Dakora FD, Phillips DA (2002) Root exudates as mediators of mineral
acquisition in low-nutrient environments. In Food Security in Nutrient-
Stressed Environments: Exploiting Plants’ Genetic Capabilities 201-213.
7.
in sole and mixed plant cultures involving symbiotic legumes. New
Phytologist 158: 39-49.
8. Juma N (1996) Crop yield and soil organic matter trends over 60 years in
a Typic Cryoboralf at Breton, Alberta. Soil Organic Matter in Temperate
Agroecosystems 273-281.
9. Mead R, Willey R (1980) The concept of a ‘land equivalent ratio’and
advantages in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16:
217-228.
10. Horwith B (1985) A role for intercropping in modern agriculture. Bio
Science 35(5): 286-291.
11. Ofori F, Stern W (1987) Cereal-legume intercropping systems. In
Advances in agronomy 41-90.
12. Willey R, Osiru D (1972) Studies on mixtures of maize and beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. The
Journal of Agricultural Science 79: 517-529.
13. Willey RW (1979) Intercropping-its importance and research needs.
Part 2. agronomy and research approaches.
14. Ofori F, Stern W (1986) Maize/cowpea intercrop system: effect of
14: 247-261.
15.
competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the
midwestern USA: 3. Competition for nitrogen and litter decomposition
dynamics. Agroforestry Systems 48(1): 61-77.
16. SILWANA TT, Lucas E (2002) The effect of planting combinations and
weeding on the growth and yield of component crops of maize/bean
and maize/pumpkin intercrops. The Journal of Agricultural Science 138:
193-200.
17.
Field Crops Research 139: 63-70.
18. Tariah N, Wahua T (1985) Effects of component populations on yields
and land equivalent ratios of intercropped maize and cowpea. Field
Crops Research 12: 81-89.
19. Lawson T, Kang B (1990) Yield of maize and cowpea in an alley cropping
system in relation to available light. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
52(3-5): 347-357.
20. Watiki J, S Fukai, JA Banda, BA Keating (1993) Radiation interception
and growth of maize/cowpea intercrop as affected by maize plant
density and cowpea cultivar. Field Crops Research 35(2): 123-133.
21. Peter G, Runge Metzger A (1994) Monocropping, intercropping or
crop rotation? An economic case study from the West African Guinea
savannah with special reference to risk. Agricultural Systems 45: 123-
143.
22. Rao M, Mathuva M (2000) Legumes for improving maize yields and
income in semi-arid Kenya. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment
78(2): 123-137.
23. Pitan OO, Odebiyi J (2001) The effect of intercropping with maize on the
level of infestation and damage by pod-sucking bugs in cowpea. Crop
Protection 20(5): 367-372.
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 6/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
24. Dapaah H (2003) Yield stability of cassava, maize, soya bean and cowpea
intercrops. The Journal of Agricultural Science 140: 73-82.
25. Myaka F (1995) Effect of time of planting and planting pattern of
different cowpea cultivars on yield of intercropped cowpea and maize
in tropical sub-humid environment. Tropical Science (United Kingdom).
26. Asafu Agyei J (1997) Sustaining food production in Ghana: the role
of cereal/legume based cropping systems. Technology options for
sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, (Eds.). T Bezuneh, AM
Emechebe, J Sedogo, M Ouedraogo, Semi-Arid Food Grain Research
Research Commission of OAU, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, West Africa,
pp. 409-416.
27.
in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agronomy Journal 82: 295-301.
28. Long Li, Fusuo Zhang, Xiaolin Li, Peter Christie, Jianhao Sun, et al. (2003)
faba bean. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 65(1): 61-71.
29.
sustainable agricultural systems 74(1-2): 255-277.
30. Evans J, AM Mc Neill, MJ Unkovich, Neil Fettell (2001) Net nitrogen
balances for cool-season grain legume crops and contributions to
wheat nitrogen uptake: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 41: 347-359.
31. Chang J, Shibles RM (1985) An analysis of competition between
intercropped cowpea and maize I. Soil N and P levels and their
relationships with dry matter and seed productivity. Field Crops
Research 12: 133-143.
32. Reddy K (1994) The effects of sole and traditional intercropping of millet
and cowpea on soil and crop productivity. Experimental Agriculture
30(1): 83-88.
33. Jensen JR (2003) Productivity in maize based cropping systems under
217-237.
34. Maurya P, Lal R (1981) Effects of different mulch materials on soil
properties and on the root growth and yield of maize (Zea mays) and
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Field Crops Research 4: 33-45.
35. De Ridder N, Van Keulen H (1990) Some aspects of the role of organic
African semi-arid-tropics (SAT). Fertilizer research 26(1-3): 299-310.
36. Vanlauwe B (1996) Residue Quality and Decompostion: An unsteady
relationship?
37. Ae N, Arihara J, Okada K, Yoshihara T, Johansen C (1990) Phosphorus
uptake by pigeon pea and its role in cropping systems of the Indian
subcontinent. Science 248(4954): 477-480.
38. Ma JF (1998) High aluminum resistance in buckwheat: II. Oxalic acid
39. HOFFLAND E (1989) Solubilization of rock phosphate by rape: I.
Evaluation of the role of the nutrient uptake pattern. Plant and soil
113(2): 155-160.
40.
acids in phosphate-starved rape plants. New Phytologist 122: 675-680.
41.
symbioses involving vascular plants. New Phytologist 114(3): 369-389.
42. Degenhardt J (1998) Aluminum resistance in the Arabidopsis
mutantalr-104 is caused by an aluminum-induced increase in
rhizosphere pH. Plant Physiology 117(1): 19-27.
43.
symbiotic legume Aspalathus linearis growing in a sandy acidic soil.
Functional Plant Biology 27(12): 1169-1173.
44. Hauggaard Nielsen H, Jensen ES (2005) Facilitative root interactions in
intercrops. In Root Physiology: from Gene to Function 237-250.
45. Jarvis S, Robson A (1983) The effects of nitrogen nutrition of plants
on the development of acidity in Western Australian soils. I. Effects
with subterranean clover grown under leaching conditions. Australian
journal of agricultural research 34: 341-353.
46.
grown in nutrient solution. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
48: 1025-1032.
47. Sas L (2001) Excess cation uptake, and extrusion of protons and organic
acid anions by Lupinus albus
160(6): 1191-1198.
48. Dakora F (2000) Host-plant factors in the adaptation of indigenous
crop productivity 579-580.
49. Cheng Y (2004) Proton release by roots of Medicago murex and Medicago
sativa growing in acidic conditions, and implications for rhizosphere pH
changes and nodulation at low pH. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36(8):
1357-1365.
50. Dinkelaker B (1989) Citric acid excretion and precipitation of calcium
citrate in the rhizosphere of white lupin (Lupinus albus L.). Plant, Cell &
Environment 12(3): 285-292.
51. Dinkelaker B (1995) Distribution and function of proteoid roots and
other root clusters. Botanica Acta 108(3): 183-200.
52. Braum S, Helmke P (1995) White lupin utilizes soil phosphorus that is
unavailable to soybean. Plant and Soil 176(1): 95-100.
53.
white lupin roots. Plant, Cell & Environment 22(7): 801-810.
54.
during proteoid root development in white lupin. Planta 208(3): 373-
382.
55.
activity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) seedlings. Annals of
botany 89(2): 213-220.
56. Li SM (2004) Acid phosphatase role in chickpea/maize intercropping.
Annals of Botany 94(2): 297-303.
57. Horst WJ, Waschkies, C. (1987) Phosphatversorgung von Sommerweizen
(Triticum aestivum L.) in Mischkultur mit weisser Lupine (Lupinus albus
L
58. Kamh M (1999) Mobilization of soil and fertilizer phosphate by cover
crops. Plant and Soil 211: 19.
59. Zhang F (2001) Contribution of above-and below-ground interactions to
intercropping. In Plant Nutrition 978-979.
60.
between intercropped maize and faba bean. Plant and Soil 212(2): 105-
114.
61. Li W (2003) Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers and
intercropping on uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus by wheat, maize,
and faba bean. Journal of plant nutrition 26(3): 629-642.
62. Eaglesham A (1981) Improving the nitrogen nutrition of maize by
intercropping with cowpea. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 13(2): 169-171.
63. Giller KE (1991) Nitrogen transfer from Phaseolus bean to intercropped
maize measured using 15N-enrichment and 15N-isotope dilution
methods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 23: 339-346.
64.
renewable source of nitrogen for agriculture.
65.
subsequent crops. Energy in world agriculture.
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 7/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
66.
to sustainable agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 29(5-6): 809-817.
67.
Field crops research 34(3-4): 335-356.
68.
Agroforestry Systems 61(1-3): 237-255.
69. Thevathasan N, Gordon A (2004) Ecology of tree intercropping systems
in the North temperate region: Experiences from southern Ontario,
Canada. In New Vistas in Agroforestry 257-268.
70. Yuanmei Z (2015) Achieving food security and high production of
China. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering 2: 134-143.
71. Li L (2001) Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: I.
research 71(2): 123-137.
72.
soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 13(1): 11-16.
73. Fujita K (1990) Nitrogen transfer and dry matter production in soybean
and sorghum mixed cropping system at different population densities.
Soil Science and plant nutrition 36(2): 233-241.
74. Li YY (2009) Intercropping alleviates the inhibitory effect of N
and Soil 323(1-2): 295-308.
75. Cochran VL, Schlentner SF (1995) Intercropped oat and fababean in
and nitrogen fertilizer response. Agronomy journal 87: 420-424.
76. Frey B, Schüepp H (1993) A role of vesicular-arbuscular (VA)
mycorrhizal fungi in facilitating interplant nitrogen transfer. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry 25(6): 651-658.
77.
cultivated in aerobic soil in an intercropping system and its effect on soil
N fertility. Plant and Soil 263(1): 17-27.
78. Dubach M, Russelle MP (1994) Forage legume roots and nodules and
their role in nitrogen transfer. Agronomy Journal 86: 259-266.
79.
species for fallow improvement, with special reference to carbon and
nitrogen. Fertilizer Research 42(1-3): 297-314.
80.
legumes in farming systems. Plant and soil 252: 41-54.
81. Gupta V, Germida J (1988) Distribution of microbial biomass and its
activity in different soil aggregate size classes as affected by cultivation.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry 20(6): 777-786.
82. Dick R (1994) Soil enzyme activities after 1500 years of terrace
agriculture in the Colca Valley, Peru. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 50(2): 123-131.
83. Alvey S (2003) Cereal/legume rotation effects on rhizosphere bacterial
community structure in West African soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils
37(2): 73-82.
84. B Roo KEs PC (1984) Phosphorus in the soil microbial biomass. Soil
biology and biochemistry 16, 169-175.
85. Tang X (2014) Increase in microbial biomass and phosphorus availability
conditions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 75: 86-93.
86. Walker TS (2003) Root exudation and rhizosphere biology. Plant
physiology 132: 44-51.
87. Bolton Jr H (1985) Soil microbial biomass and selected soil enzyme
activities: effect of fertilization and cropping practices. Soil biology and
Biochemistry 17: 297-302.
88. Goyal S (1993) Microbial biomass turnover and enzyme activities
without previous long-term applications. Biology and Fertility of Soils
15(1): 60-64.
89.
enzyme activities in relation to soil chemical properties of a wheat-
fallow system. Biology and Fertility of Soils 6(2): 159-164.
90. Li L (2007) Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via rhizosphere
the National Academy of Sciences 104: 11192-11196.
91. Dalai R (1977) Soil organic phosphorus. In Advances in agronomy 83-
117.
92. Li H (2014) Rhizosphere properties in monocropping and intercropping
systems between faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and maize (Zea mays L.)
grown in a calcareous soil. Crop and Pasture Science 64: 976-984.
93. Shane MW (2006) Specialized ‘dauciform’roots of Cyperaceae are
structurally distinct, but functionally analogous with ‘cluster’roots.
Plant, Cell & Environment 29(10): 1989-1999.
94. Li L (2004) Calcium, magnesium and microelement uptake as affected
wheat and chickpea. Plant and Soil 261(1-2): 29-37.
95. Li H (2008) Dynamics of phosphorus fractions in the rhizosphere
of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and durum wheat (Triticum
turgidum durum L.) grown in monocropping and intercropping systems.
Plant and Soil 312(1-2): 139-150.
96. Tarafdar J, Jungk A (1987) Phosphatase activity in the rhizosphere and
its relation to the depletion of soil organic phosphorus. Biology and
Fertility of Soils 3(4): 199-204.
97. Goldstein A (1992) Phosphate starvation inducible enzymes and
proteins in higher plants. In Society for Experimental Biology Seminar
Series 25-44.
98. Duff SM (1994) The role of acid phosphatases in plant phosphorus
metabolism. Physiologia Plantarum 90(4): 791-800.
99. Del Pozo JC (1999) A type 5 acid phosphatase gene from Arabidopsis
thaliana is induced by phosphate starvation and by some other types
of phosphate mobilising/oxidative stress conditions. The Plant Journal
19(5): 579-589.
100. Haran S (2000) Characterization of Arabidopsis acid phosphatase
promoter and regulation of acid phosphatase expression. Plant
Physiology 124: 615-626.
101. Baldwin JC (2001) LEPS2, a phosphorus starvation-induced novel acid
phosphatase from tomato. Plant physiology 125(2): 728-737.
102. Miller SS, Liu J, Allan DL, Menzhuber CJ, Fedorova M, et al. (2001)
Molecular control of acid phosphatase secretion into the rhizosphere
of proteoid roots from phosphorus-stressed white lupin. Plant
Physiology 127(2): 594-606.
103. Li D, Zhu H, Liu K, Liu X, Leggewie G, et al. (2002) Purple acid
phosphatases of Arabidopsis thaliana comparative analysis and
differential regulation by phosphate deprivation. Journal of Biological
Chemistry 277(31): 27772-27781.
104.
enzymes. Soil microbial ecology: application in agricultural and
environmental management. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, p. 95-125.
105. Eivazi F, Tabatabai M (1977) Phosphatases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem
9(3): 167-172.
106. Dick W (2000) Soil acid and alkaline phosphatase activity as pH
adjustment indicators. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32(2000): 1915-
1919.
107. Nakas J (1987) Origin and expression of phosphatase activity in a
semi-arid grassland soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19(1): 13-18.
Copyright@ Jamal Nasar | Biomed J Sci & Tech Res| BJSTR. MS.ID.003054. 8/8
Volume 17- Issue 5 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
108. Chróst RJ (1991) Environmental control of the synthesis and activity
of aquatic microbial ectoenzymes. In Microbial enzymes in aquatic
environments 29-59.
109. Hayes JE, (1999) Phytase and acid phosphatase activities in extracts
from roots of temperate pasture grass and legume seedlings.
Functional Plant Biology 26(8): 801-809.
110. Li M, Mitsuru OsakiIdupulapati, Madhusudana Rao, Toshiaki Tadano
(1997) Secretion of phytase from the roots of several plant species
169.
111. Bariola PA (1994) The Arabidopsis ribonuclease gene RNS1 is tightly
controlled in response to phosphate limitation. The Plant Journal 6(5):
673-685.
112. Muchhal US (1996) Phosphate transporters from the higher plant
Arabidopsis thaliana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
93(19): 10519-10523.
113.
from Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 11: 2153-2166.
114. Kai M, Kouji Takazumi, Hirofumi Adachi, Jun Wasaki, Takuro Shinano, et
al. (2002) Cloning and characterization of four phosphate transporter
cDNAs in tobacco. Plant Science 163(4): 837-846.
115. Karthikeyan AS, Deepa K Varadarajan, Uthappa T Mukatira, Matilde
Paino D’Urzo, Barbara Damsz, et al. (2002) Regulated expression of
Arabidopsis phosphate transporters. Plant Physiology 130: 221-233.
116. Mudge SR, Rae AL, Diatloff E, Smith FW (2002) Expression analysis
suggests novel roles for members of the Pht1 family of phosphate
transporters in Arabidopsis. The Plant Journal 31(3): 341-353.
117. Versaw WK, Harrison MJ (2002) A chloroplast phosphate transporter,
phosphate-starvation responses. The Plant Cell 14(8): 1751-1766.
118. Izaguirre Mayoral M, S Flores, O Carballo (2002) Determination of
acid phosphatase and dehydrogenase activities in the rhizosphere of
nodulated legume species native to two contrasting savanna sites in
Venezuela. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35(6): 470-472.
119. Patra D, PC Brookes, K Coleman, DS Jenkinson (1990) Seasonal changes
of soil microbial biomass in an arable and a grassland soil which have
been under uniform management for many years. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 22(6): 739-742.
120. Staddon W, LC Duchesne J, T Trevors (1998) Acid phosphatase, alkaline
phosphatase and arylsulfatase activities in soils from a jack pine (Pinus
banksiana Lamb.) ecosystem after clear-cutting, prescribed burning,
121. Wright A, Reddy K (2001) Phosphorus loading effects on extracellular
enzyme activity in Everglades wetland soils. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 65(2): 588-595.
122.
phosphorus supply on the maximum secretion of acid phosphatase by
plants. Biology and Fertility of soils 34(3): 140-143.
123.
n, P Transfomations [J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica 1: 009.
124. Aon M, Colaneri A (2001) II. Temporal and spatial evolution of
enzymatic activities and physico-chemical properties in an agricultural
soil. Applied Soil Ecology 18(3): 255-270.
125. Xue Y, Xia H, Christie P, Zhang ZA, Li LY, et al. (2016) Crop acquisition
of phosphorus, iron and zinc from soil in cereal/legume intercropping
systems: a critical review. Annals of botany 117(3): 363-77.
126. Nel P (1975) Mixed cropping of lupines and winter cereals. Seeds yield
237.
127. Willey R (1990) Resource use in intercropping systems. Agricultural
water management 17(1-3): 215-231.
128. Morris R, Garrity D (1993) Resource capture and utilization in
intercropping; non-nitrogen nutrients. Field Crops Research 34(3-4):
319-334.
129. Mpairwe D (2002) Effect of intercropping cereal crops with forage
legumes and source of nutrients on cereal grain yield and fodder dry
matter yields. African Crop Science Journal 10(1): 81-97.
130. Crews T, Peoples M (2004) Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen:
ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agriculture, ecosystems &
environment 102(3): 279-297.
Submission Link: https://biomedres.us/submit-manuscript.php
Assets of Publishing with us
• Global archiving of articles
• Immediate, unrestricted online access
• Rigorous Peer Review Process
• Authors Retain Copyrights
• Unique DOI for all articles
https://biomedres.us/
This work is licensed under Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 License
ISSN: 2574-1241
DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
Jamal Nasar. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res
