Effects of strip intercropping of maize and peanut on nitrogen uptake and soil microbial community diversity

doi:10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2021283

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the nitrogen uptake and utilization and the characteristics of soil microbial community under the intercropping of maize and peanut, three treatments were set up for sole maize （SM）, sole peanut （SP） and intercropping of maize and peanut （IMP）. The nitrogen absorption and utilization under different planting modes were systematically analyzed, and 16S/ITS sequencing technology were used to clarify the changes in soil bacterial/fungal community structure under the intercropping of maize and peanut. The results showed that side-row maize of intercropping had a marginal advantage, the dry matter weight and nitrogen accumulation was higher than the middle of intercropping maize and sole maize. The diversity and richness of bacterial and fungal in intercropped maize and the shared soil of intercropping maize and peanut was decreased, while the diversity and richness of fungal in intercropped peanut was increased, and the most enrichment of beneficial bacterial were increased, such as Proteobacteria, Basidiomycetes and Ascomycetes. There was complex correlation between bacteria and fungi. The Proteobacteria was positively correlated with Ascomycetes. The intercropping enriched the functional diversity of bacterial, and the enrichment of bacterial and saprophytic fungal involved in the amino acid transport and metabolism and carbohydrate transport and metabolism improved the nutrient uptake and promoted the growth and development of plants. In conclusion, intercropping of maize and peanut optimized the soil microbial community structure, promoted plant nutrient absorption and dry matter accumulation, which provided a scientific basis for the mutual promotion of nitrogen absorption of the maize and peanut intercropping.

Key words: maize, peanut, strip intercropping, the shared soil of intercropping maize and peanut, nitrogen uptake and utilization, 16S/ITS

CLC Number:

S565.2

Qi-qi DONG, Yang YUAN, Qi DU, Zhen-hua LIU, Xiao-long SHI, Ke-zhao ZHANG, Dong-ying ZHOU, Xu YANG, Xiao-guang WANG, Chun-ji JIANG, Xi-bo LIU, Feng GUO, Xin-hua ZHAO, Hai-qiu YU. Effects of strip intercropping of maize and peanut on nitrogen uptake and soil microbial community diversity[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(6): 1296-1306.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig. 1

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 2

Table 3

Fig. 3

References 49

1	《2021 年世界粮食安全和营养状况：实现粮食体系转型，保障粮食安全，改善营养，确保人人可负担健康膳食》［R］. 罗马，联合国粮农组织， https：//doi.org/10.4060/cb4474zh.
2	张昆，万勇善，刘风珍，等. 不同玉米花生间作模式对饱果期花生冠层微环境及光合特性的影响［J］. 山东农业科学， 2021， 53（8）： 28-32. DOI：10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2021.08.005 . doi: 10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2021.08.005
3	焦念元，宁堂原，赵春，等. 施氮量和玉米-花生间作模式对氮磷吸收与利用的影响［J］. 作物学报， 2008， 34（4）： 706-712. DOI：10.3321/j.issn： 0496-3490.2008.04.024 . doi: 10.3321/j.issn： 0496-3490.2008.04.024
4	Wu L K， Wang J Y， Huang W M， et al. Plant-microbe rhizosphere interactions mediated by Rehmannia glutinosa root exudates under consecutive monoculture［J］. Sci Rep， 2015， 5： 15871. DOI：10.1038/srep15871 . doi: 10.1038/srep15871
5	刘颖，王建国，郭峰，等. 玉米花生间作对作物干物质积累和氮素吸收利用的影响［J］. 中国油料作物学报， 2020， 42（6）： 994-1001. DOI：10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2019297 . doi: 10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2019297
6	覃潇敏，潘浩男，肖靖秀，等. 低磷条件下玉米大豆间作对大豆根瘤生长、固氮功能的影响［J］. 作物学报， 2021， 47（11）： 2268-2277. DOI：10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04237 . doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04237
7	张晓娜，陈平，杜青，等. 玉米/大豆、玉米/花生间作对作物氮素吸收及结瘤固氮的影响［J］. 中国生态农业学报， 2019， 27（8）： 1183-1194. DOI：10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.181055 . doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.181055
8	王雪蓉，张润芝，李淑敏，等. 不同供氮水平下玉米/大豆间作体系干物质积累和氮素吸收动态模拟［J］. 中国生态农业学报， 2019， 27（9）： 1354-1363. DOI：10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.190075 . doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.190075
9	Wang L Y， Hou B C， Zhang D S， et al. The niche complementarity driven by rhizosphere interactions enhances phosphorus-use efficiency in maize/alfalfa mixture［J］. Food Energy Secur， 2020， 9（4）： e252. DOI：10.1002/fes3.252 . doi: 10.1002/fes3.252
10	Zhang Q S， Chu Y Y， Xue Y F， et al. Outlook of China's agriculture transforming from smallholder operation to sustainable production［J］. Glob Food Secur， 2020， 26： 100444. DOI：10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100444 . doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100444
11	张雷昌，汤利，董艳，等. 根系互作影响玉米大豆间作作物氮吸收［J］. 云南农业大学学报（自然科学）， 2016， 31（6）： 1111-1119. DOI：10.16211/j.issn.1004-390X（n）.2016.06.022 . doi: 10.16211/j.issn.1004-390X（n）.2016.06.022
12	Misra P， Maji D， Awasthi A， et al. Vulnerability of soil microbiome to monocropping of medicinal and aromatic plants and its restoration through intercropping and organic amendments［J］. Front Microbiol， 2019， 10： 2604. DOI：10.3389/fmicb.2019.02604 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02604
13	Chu H Y， Fierer N， Lauber C L， et al. Soil bacterial diversity in the Arctic is not fundamentally different from that found in other biomes［J］. Environ Microbiol， 2010， 12（11）： 2998-3006. DOI：10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02277.x . doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02277.x
14	Fan F L， Li Z J， Wakelin S A， et al. Mineral fertilizer alters cellulolytic community structure and suppresses soil cellobiohydrolase activity in a long-term fertilization experiment［J］. Soil Biol Biochem， 2012， 55： 70-77. DOI：10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.06.008 . doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.06.008
15	Coskun D， Britto D T， Shi W M， et al. How plant root exudates shape the nitrogen cycle［J］. Trends Plant Sci， 2017， 22（8）： 661-673. DOI：10.1016/j.tplants.2017.05.004 . doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.05.004
16	Chen J， Arafat Y， Wu L K， et al. Shifts in soil microbial community， soil enzymes and crop yield under peanut/maize intercropping with reduced nitrogen levels［J］. Appl Soil Ecol， 2018， 124： 327-334. DOI：10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.11.010 . doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.11.010
17	Fu Z D， Zhou L， Chen P， et al. Effects of maize-soybean relay intercropping on crop nutrient uptake and soil bacterial community［J］. J Integr Agric， 2019， 18（9）： 2006-2018. DOI：10.1016/S2095-3119（18）62114-8 . doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119（18）62114-8
18	Li Q S， Chen J， Wu L K， et al. Belowground interactions impact the soil bacterial community， soil fertility， and crop yield in maize/peanut intercropping systems［J］. Int J Mol Sci， 2018， 19（2）： 622. DOI：10.3390/ijms19020622 . doi: 10.3390/ijms19020622
19	Guo L N， Wang X K， Lin Y L， et al. Microorganisms that are critical for the fermentation quality of paper mulberry silage［J］. Food Energy Secur， 2021， 10（4）： e304. DOI：10.1002/fes3.304 . doi: 10.1002/fes3.304
20	Manter D K， Vivanco J M. Use of the ITS primers， ITS1F and ITS4， to characterize fungal abundance and diversity in mixed-template samples by qPCR and length heterogeneity analysis［J］. J Microbiol Methods， 2007， 71（1）： 7-14. DOI：10.1016/j.mimet.2007.06.016 . doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.06.016
21	Zhu F， Ju Y M， Wang W， et al. Metagenome-wide association of gut microbiome features for schizophrenia［J］. Nat Commun， 2020， 11（1）： 1612. DOI：10.1038/s41467-020-15457-9 . doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15457-9
22	Yang F M， Sun J H， Luo H N， et al. Assessment of fecal DNA extraction protocols for metagenomic studies［J］. GigaScience， 2020， 9（7）： giaa071. DOI：10.1093/gigascience/giaa071 . doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giaa071
23	Magoč T， Salzberg S L. FLASH： fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies［J］. Bioinformatics， 2011， 27（21）： 2957-2963. DOI：10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 . doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
24	Bolger A M， Lohse M， Usadel B. Trimmomatic： a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data［J］. Bioinformatics， 2014， 30（15）： 2114-2120. DOI：10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 . doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170
25	Edgar R C， Haas B J， Clemente J C， et al. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection［J］. Bioinformatics， 2011， 27（16）： 2194-2200. DOI：10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 . doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381
26	Edgar R C. UPARSE： highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads［J］. Nat Methods， 2013， 10（10）： 996-998. DOI：10.1038/nmeth.2604 . doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2604
27	Bokulich N A， Subramanian S， Faith J J， et al. Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing［J］. Nat Methods， 2013， 10（1）： 57-59. DOI：10.1038/nmeth.2276 . doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2276
28	Liu G， Liu W， Yang Y， et al. Marginal superiority of maize： an indicator for density tolerance under high plant density［J］. Sci Reports， 2020， 10： 15378. DOI：10.1038/s41598-020-72435-3 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72435-3
29	Wang X L， Feng Y J， Yu L L， et al. Sugarcane/soybean intercropping with reduced nitrogen input improves crop productivity and reduces carbon footprint in China［J］. Sci Total Environ， 2020， 719： 137517. DOI：10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137517 . doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137517
30	Raza M A， Bin Khalid M H， Zhang X， et al. Effect of planting patterns on yield， nutrient accumulation and distribution in maize and soybean under relay intercropping systems［J］. Sci Rep， 2019， 9（1）： 4947. DOI：10.1038/s41598-019-41364-1 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41364-1
31	Fan Y F， Wang Z L， Liao D P， et al. Uptake and utilization of nitrogen， phosphorus and potassium as related to yield advantage in maize-soybean intercropping under different row configurations［J］. Sci Rep， 2020， 10（1）： 9504. DOI：10.1038/s41598-020-66459-y . doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66459-y
32	伏云珍，马琨，李倩，等. 马铃薯\|\|玉米间作对土壤细菌多样性的影响［J］. 中国生态农业学报， 2020， 28（11）： 1715-1725. DOI：10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.200240 . doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.200240
33	林洪鑫，潘晓华，袁展汽，等. 施氮和木薯-花生间作对木薯养分积累和系统养分利用的影响［J］. 中国农业科学， 2018， 51（17）： 3275-3290. DOI：10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.17.004 . doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.17.004
34	瓮巧云，黄新军，许翰林，等. 玉米/大豆间作模式对青贮玉米产量、品质及土壤营养、根际微生物的影响［J］. 核农学报， 2021， 35（2）： 462-470. DOI： 10.11869/j.issn.1008551.2021.02.0462 . doi: 10.11869/j.issn.1008551.2021.02.0462
35	Broeckling C D， Broz A K， Bergelson J， et al. Root exudates regulate soil fungal community composition and diversity［J］. Appl Environ Microbiol， 2008， 74（3）： 738-744. DOI：10.1128/AEM.02188-07 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.02188-07
36	Berg G， Smalla K. Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere［J］. FEMS Microbiol Ecol， 2009， 68（1）： 1-13. DOI：10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00654.x . doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00654.x
37	Tang X M， Zhong R C， Jiang J， et al. Cassava/peanut intercropping improves soil quality via rhizospheric microbes increased available nitrogen contents［J］. BMC Biotechnol， 2020， 20（1）： 13. DOI：10.1186/s12896-020-00606-1 . doi: 10.1186/s12896-020-00606-1
38	王宇蕴，任家兵，张莹，等. 小麦蚕豆间作改善蚕豆根际微生物区系与减轻蚕豆枯萎病的作用［J］. 土壤通报， 2020， 51（5）： 1127-1133. DOI：10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2020.05.16 . doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2020.05.16
39	唐秀梅，蒙秀珍，蒋菁，等. 甘蔗间作花生对不同耕层土壤微生态的影响［J］. 中国油料作物学报， 2020， 42（5）： 713-722. DOI：10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2019318 . doi: 10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2019318
40	Li B， Li Y Y， Wu H M， et al. Root exudates drive interspecific facilitation by enhancing nodulation and N₂ fixation［J］. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA， 2016， 113（23）： 6496-6501. DOI：10.1073/pnas.1523580113 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523580113
41	储成才，王毅，王二涛. 植物氮磷钾养分高效利用研究现状与展望［J］. 中国科学：生命科学， 2021， 51（10）： 1415-1423. DOI：10.1360/SSV-2021-0163 . doi: 10.1360/SSV-2021-0163
42	Trivedi P， Leach J E， Tringe S G， et al. Plant-microbiome interactions： from community assembly to plant health［J］. Nat Rev Microbiol， 2020， 18（11）： 607-621. DOI：10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1 . doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1
43	Rampelotto P H， de Siqueira Ferreira A， Barboza A D M， et al. Changes in diversity， abundance， and structure of soil bacterial communities in Brazilian Savanna under different land use systems［J］. Microb Ecol， 2013， 66（3）： 593-607. DOI：10.1007/s00248-013-0235-y . doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0235-y
44	Lee S Y， Tindwa H， Lee Y S， et al. Biocontrol of anthracnose in pepper using chitinase， beta-1， 3 glucanase， and 2-furancarboxaldehyde produced by Streptomyces cavourensis SY224［J］. J Microbiol Biotechnol， 2012， 22（10）： 1359-1366. DOI：10.4014/jmb.1203.02056 . doi: 10.4014/jmb.1203.02056
45	Zheng X F， Wang Z R， Zhu Y J， et al. Effects of a microbial restoration substrate on plant growth and rhizosphere bacterial community in a continuous tomato cropping greenhouse［J］. Sci Rep， 2020， 10（1）： 13729. DOI：10.1038/s41598-020-70737-0 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70737-0
46	Liang J， Tang S Q， Gong J L， et al. Responses of enzymatic activity and microbial communities to biochar/compost amendment in sulfamethoxazole polluted wetland soil［J］. J Hazard Mater， 2020， 385： 121533. DOI：10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121533 . doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121533
47	张晓岗，刘萍，马琨，等. 间作栽培对宁夏南部山区马铃薯根际土壤真菌菌群结构的影响［J］. 西北农业学报， 2020， 29（12）： 1875-1882. DOI：10.7606/ji.ssn.1004-1389.2020.12.013 . doi: 10.7606/ji.ssn.1004-1389.2020.12.013
48	Phillips L A， Ward V， Jones M D. Ectomycorrhizal fungi contribute to soil organic matter cycling in sub-boreal forests［J］. ISME J， 2014， 8（3）： 699-713. DOI：10.1038/ismej.2013.195 . doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.195
49	Lian T， Mu Y， Ma Q， et al. Use of sugarcane-soybean intercropping in acid soil impacts the structure of the soil fungal community ［J］. Sci Rep， 2018， 8（1）：14488. DOI： 10.1038/s41598-018-32920-2 doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32920-2

出苗后天数 After seedling emergence/d	样品 Sample	地下部 Underground Dry Matter Weight		地上部 Aboveground Dry Matter Weight		总干物质积累 Total Dry Matter Weight
出苗后天数 After seedling emergence/d	样品 Sample	2018	2019	2018	2019	2018	2019
65 d	SM	55.80±8.40ab	50.73±12.48ab	217.27±13.67ab	193.72±43.32a	273.07±11.85b	244.44±46.3ab
	IM	69.07±0.31a	86.03±47.22a	247.30±12.25a	259.84±22.75a	316.37±12.15a	345.87±68.53a
	MIM	51.02±7.37b	45.05±9.04b	211.77±13.15b	156.63±10.49a	262.79±17.88b	201.68±14.35b
	SP	3.81±1.86a	2.59±0.96a	18.15±2.49a	12.27±3.16a	21.96±3.20a	14.86±3.82a
	IP	2.06±0.64a	2.10±0.18a	12.41±2.49a	10.71±1.81a	14.47±3.00a	12.82±1.96a
	MIP	2.53±0.19a	2.18±0.21a	16.15±3.68a	11.41±1.19a	18.68±3.75a	13.59±1.40a
120 d	SM	38.33±10.33a	82.30±8.34a	532.85±62.36b	602.37±81.56b	571.18±59.46a	684.67±88.23a
	IM	75.03±22.84a	106.47±5.95a	538.20±44.12a	619.96±39.93a	613.23±56.48a	726.43±45.02a
	MIM	38.10±5.24a	60.03±2.79a	489.70±21.13b	571.87±29.61c	527.80±26.33a	631.90±29.64a
	SP	19.97±3.29a	14.40±3.26a	16.10±2.65a	12.63±1.24a	36.07±5.02a	27.03±3.41a
	IP	13.17±2.21b	7.80±1.63b	7.60±0.70b	5.37±0.62a	20.77±2.56b	13.17±1.52b
	MIP	19.33±2.40b	13.57±3.42a	11.40±0.45ab	11.50±1.37a	30.73±2.11a	25.07±4.79a

出苗后天数 After seedling emergence/d	样品 Sample	地下部 Underground Dry Matter Weight		地上部 Aboveground Dry Matter Weight
出苗后天数 After seedling emergence/d	样品 Sample	2018	2019	2018	2019
65d	SM	495.13±66.77b	771.48±147.69b	1538.62±59.20b	1440.35±384.82b
	IM	1435.23±40.31a	1120.83±199.93a	1937.06±53.12a	2312.79±186.61a
	MIM	733.89±89.99b	805.40±42.63b	1584.28±52.49b	1701.76±423.30ab
	SP	77.20±0.08a	56.41±0.06a	519.36±0.52a	502.63±0.50a
	IP	39.54±0.04a	51.39±0.05a	351.46±0.35b	282.03±0.28b
	MIP	95.19±0.10a	59.20±0.06a	449.62±0.45ab	328.82±0.33b
120d	SM	4750.30±171.69b	4472.05±721.46b	1290.25±17.44b	1447.84±307.20b
	IM	6534.23±323.53a	7121.15±218.32a	2092.50±224.26a	2785.39±571.52a
	MIM	5136.11±431.84b	5544.28±1968.01ab	1475.80±163.85b	2660.96±120.63a
	SP	419.87±0.42a	482.25±0.48a	182.30±0.18a	338.56±0.34a
	IP	288.34±0.29b	226.46±0.23b	166.13±0.17a	111.00±0.11b
	MIP	429.70±0.43a	233.48±0.23b	179.40±0.18a	126.36±0.13b

样品 Sample	OTUs		Shannon		Simpson		Ace		Chao
样品 Sample	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi
IM	1689.67±223.01a	334.33±53.51a	10.19±0.09a	6.36±0.14b	0.9987±0.0001a	0.966±0.005a	2851.02±94.33a	354.94±50.24a	2643.34±105.25a	354.54±49.77a
SM	2139.67±149.98a	370.00±41.53a	10.39±0.08a	6.83±0.08a	0.9986±0.0001a	0.976±0.002a	3042.87±65.30a	393.30±37.68a	2981.87±96.99a	389.68±35.80a
IP	2100.00±150.30a	364.67±25.95a	10.36±0.03a	6.64±0.16a	0.9986±0.0001a	0.974±0.004a	2984.60±32.82b	388.66±28.91a	2865.98±35.20a	390.51±28.48a
SP	2193.00±132.86a	339.00±24.91a	10.42±0.04a	6.62±0.15a	0.9984±0.0002a	0.972±0.002a	3174.60±8.63a	349.10±18.06a	3024.28±15.51b	352.29±18.20a
II	2118.33±169.00a	259.00±40.60b	10.38±0.05a	5.88±0.50a	0.9987±0.0000a	0.937±0.029a	2986.89±59.14a	265.84±29.60a	2866.18±69.48a	267.59±28.04b
SIM	2216.67±78.27a	369.67±29.77a	10.49±0.02a	6.86±0.06a	0.9988±0.0000a	0.977±0.001a	3159.75±51.38a	385.01±25.54a	3008.76±58.45a	389.01±25.95a
SIP	2209.67±136.79a	286.67±34.10ab	10.46±0.08a	6.35±0.08a	0.9987±0.0002a	0.962±0.003a	3020.92±87.10a	297.00±31.57a	2921.28±73.27a	296.74±29.99ab

[1]	Jia-li GONG, Dong-lei SUN, Neng-fei BIAN, Xing WANG, Xiao-jun WANG. Research progress of peanut bacterial wilt in China [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(6): 1159-1165.
[2]	Min-jie GUO, Li DENG, Yu-rong Li, Jin WANG, Li REN. Comprehensive evaluation of Jihua peanut varieties with high oleic acid based on principal component and cluster analysis [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(6): 1210-1217.
[3]	Zhong-sheng CAO, Yan-da LI, Jun-bao HUANG, Bin-feng SUN, Chun YE, Shi-fu SHU, Luo-fa WU, Yong-chao TIAN. Sensitive vegetation indices and optimal bandwidths for monitoring peanut LAI and AGB [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(6): 1320-1328.
[4]	SACHURULA, BADUMUCAICIKE, Rui-lin TIAN, Zhan-ming HOU, Zhen-xing WANG. Effects of peanut, soybean and carrot as feed on development and adult survival of Dolycoris baccarum [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(6): 1337-1340.
[5]	Shao-jian LI, Meng GAO, Na WANG, Wan-wan FAN, Su-ling SANG, Guang YANG, Hang-yu LI, Xiao-wei CUI, Zhen-yu WANG. Differences in conidia of peanut web blotch pathogen and its pathogenicity analysis [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(6): 1341-1348.
[6]	Jia-ning LIANG, Jun ZHANG, Le-zeng TAN, Song-nan YANG, Xue-ying LI, Dan YAO, Liang-yu CHEN, Qiu-lin WU, Yong-yi XING, Xiao HAN. Transcriptome analysis of peanut protein mutants at different seed development stages [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(5): 1018-1029.
[7]	Ting XU, Yan-tao LIU, Hai-jiang WANG, Qiang LI, Peng WANG, Hong-ye DONG. Effects of saline-alkali stress on germination characteristics of peanut seeds and comprehensive identification and evaluation of salt damage [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(5): 1037-1047.
[8]	Liang-qiang CHENG, Jian-bin GUO, Wei-tao LI, Li HUANG, Huai-yong LUO, Nian LIU, Xiao-jing ZHOU, Wei-gang CHEN, Jun WANG, Jian-wei LYU, Ting-hui HU, Qing-lin RAO, Yong LEI, Bo-shou LIAO, Hui-fang JIANG. Novel genotypes and quantitative trait locus for rust resistance in peanut [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(5): 1074-1080.
[9]	Hong-chang JI, Xiao-chen QIU, Wen-hao LIU, Chang-li HU, Ming KONG, Xiao-hui HU, Jian-bin HUANG, Xue YANG, Yan-yan TANG, Xiao-jun ZHANG, Jing-shan WANG, Li-xian QIAO. Construction and application of near infrared ray model for oil content prediction in peanut kernel [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(5): 1089-1097.
[10]	Dong-yang YU, Li-ying YAN, Wan-duo SONG, Yan-ping KANG, Yong LEI, Yu-ning CHEN, Dong-xin HUAI, Xin WANG, Zhi-hui WANG, Huai-yong LUO, Xiao-jing ZHOU, Li HUANG, Nian LIU, Wei-gang CHEN, Hui-fang JIANG, Bo-shou LIAO. Progress on pathogenicity differentiation in Sclerotium rolfsii isolates from peanut [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(5): 930-936.
[11]	Wei-bo DONG, Min LI. Occurrence and management of tomato spotted wilt virus in peanut [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(5): 937-947.
[12]	Yong-ping XIE, Yun-huan ZHENG, Ying-duo GUO, Zhao-cong CHEN. The first report on one haploid plant in cultivated peanut using anther culture technique [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(4): 810-817.
[13]	Bei WU, Nian LIU, Li HUANG, Huai-yong LUO, Xiao-jing ZHOU, Wei-gang CHEN, Jian-bin GUO, Dong-xin HUAI, You-lin XIA, Yong LEI, Bo-shou LIAO, Hui-fang JIANG. Identification of markers stably associated with different fatty acid content in peanut through association analysis [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(4): 818-825.
[14]	Xue-feng SHEN, Wen-tao LU, Yong CHEN. Aluminum stress on root metabolism of peanutbased on metabolomics of UPLC-MS/MS [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(4): 833-844.
[15]	Ming LI, Hui CAO, Rui-rui XU. Ectopic expression of peanut AhMYB113 gene enhances anthocyanin accumulation in tobacco [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(4): 845-851.