رقابت اندام های هوایی و زیر زمینی سلمه تره با چغندرقند

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 محقق

2 استاد دانشگاه

چکیده

در این تحقیق، تاتیر رقابت اندام هوایی و زمینی علف هرز سلمه تره روی رشد، عملکرد و کیفیت چغندر قندد در شدرای 02 درجه سانتی گراد، ارزیابی شد. دو رقم چغندر قندد شدام گلخانه ای با 61 ساعت روشنایی در شبانه روز و دمای 5 از نظر رقابت با سلمه تره تحت چهار رژیم رقابتی یعنی رقابدت انددام هدوایی ) Celt( و کلت )Amethyst( آمتیست اندام زمینی( بررسی شدند. برای این منظور، دو گیاهچه چغندقندد و چهدار گیاهچده ( اندام هوایی( و اندام زمینی ( سلمه تره در مرحله کوتیلدونی در گلدان نشاء شدند. گیاهان در 8 و 61 هفته پس از انتقال نشاء برداشت شدند. در هدر برداشت، میزان کلروفی برگ چغندرقند و ارتفاع گیاه، سطح برگ، توزیع ماده خشک هر دو گیاه چغندرقند و سلمه تدره اندازه گیری شد. نتایج نشان داد که اندام هوایی و زمینی هر دو رقم چغندر قند از نظر رشد و عملکرد محصول، بطدور معنی داری تحت تاثیر رقابت سلمه تره قرار داشتند. بطوری که، رقابت سلمه تره با اندام زمینی و هوایی چغندر قند، در 8 و 61 هفته پس از انتقال نشاء، منجر به کاهش معنی دار عملکرد ریشه و اندام هوایی چغندرقند شد. با این حال، درصد قند در رژیم های رقابتی با سلمه تره تحت تاثیر قرار نگرفت. رقابت این علف هرز با ریشه چغندرقند، در 61 هفته پدس از نشا، بیش از رقابت آن با اندام هوایی باعث کاهش عملکرد ریشه و اندام هوایی و عملکرد نسبی چغندر قند شدد. در حالیکه بین رقابت اندام هوایی و رقابت اندام زمینی در 8 هفته پس از انتقال نشاء اثر متقاب معنی داری وجود نداشدت. به طور کلی، کاهش عملکرد چغندرقند تحت تاثیر رقابت اندام هوایی و زمینی با علف هرز سلمه تره بده ترتید 74 % و %88 بود. بنابراین تحت شرای این پژوهش، رقابت سلمه تره با ارقام چغنددر قندد در یدک دوره 61 هفتده ای پدس از انتقال نش اها، در دریافت منابع زیر زمینی، در قیاس با منابع روی زمین، از اهمیت بیشتری برخوردار

عنوان مقاله [English]

Above- and Below-ground Competition between Chenopodium album and Sugar Beet

نویسندگان [English]

  • mohammad abdollahian 1
  • r froud williams 2
چکیده [English]

The effects of above and below-ground competition between Chenopodium album and sugar beet (Beta Vulgaris) on growth, yield and quality of two sugar beet cultivars of morphologically contrasting growth habit have been investigated A factorial experiment (2 × 4) under glass-house conditions in a randomised complete block design with three replications was done. C. album and two sugar beet cultivars ‘Amethyst’ and ‘Celt’, were subjected to one of four competition regimes as follows: two below-ground competition treatments (± root competition); two above-ground competition treatments (± shoot competition). Two seedlings of sugar beet and four of C. album were transplanted at cotyledon stage in plastic pots (44 cm diameter and 35 cm deep). Plants were harvested 8 (12 leaf stage) and 16 (22 leaf stage) weeks after transplanting (WAT). At each harvest, leaf chlorophyll content, plant height, leaf area and shoot and root dry matter of sugar beet and C. album were Correspondence to : M. Abdollahian-Noghabi, E-mail: Noghabi@yahoo.com M. Abdollahian & R.J. Froud-Williams   6   determined. The results demonstrated that there were major differences between growth and yield of the two sugar beet cultivars which were influenced by both above and below-ground competition with C. album. No interactions were observed between beet cultivar and the competition regime, but shoot and root competition inter-acted negatively 8 and 16 WAT. Both sugar beet shoot and root yield were reduced by shoot and root competition with C. album 8 and 16 WAT. However, beet sugar content was unaffected by weed competition regimes. Root competition with C. album caused greater reduction of shoot and root yield of sugar beet than shoot competition 16 WAT. However, there was no significant difference between shoot and root competition 8 WAT. Yield loss of sugar beet subject to shoot and root competition with C. album was 47 and 82% respectively. Thus, under these conditions, the effect of C .album competition for above-ground resources was less than that for below-ground resources during a period up to 16 WAT The effects of above and below-ground competition between Chenopodium album and sugar beet (Beta Vulgaris) on growth, yield and quality of two sugar beet cultivars of morphologically contrasting growth habit have been investigated A factorial experiment (2 × 4) under glass-house conditions in a randomised complete block design with three replications was done. C. album and two sugar beet cultivars ‘Amethyst’ and ‘Celt’, were subjected to one of four competition regimes as follows: two below-ground competition treatments (± root competition); two above-ground competition treatments (± shoot competition). Two seedlings of sugar beet and four of C. album were transplanted at cotyledon stage in plastic pots (44 cm diameter and 35 cm deep). Plants were harvested 8 (12 leaf stage) and 16 (22 leaf stage) weeks after transplanting (WAT). At each harvest, leaf chlorophyll content, plant height, leaf area and shoot and root dry matter of sugar beet and C. album were Correspondence to : M. Abdollahian-Noghabi, E-mail: Noghabi@yahoo.com M. Abdollahian & R.J. Froud-Williams 6 determined. The results demonstrated that there were major differences between growth and yield of the two sugar beet cultivars which were influenced by both above and below-ground competition with C. album. No interactions were observed between beet cultivar and the competition regime, but shoot and root competition inter-acted negatively 8 and 16 WAT. Both sugar beet shoot and root yield were reduced by shoot and root competition with C. album 8 and 16 WAT. However, beet sugar content was unaffected by weed competition regimes. Root competition with C. album caused greater reduction of shoot and root yield of sugar beet than shoot competition 16 WAT. However, there was no significant difference between shoot and root competition 8 WAT. Yield loss of sugar beet subject to shoot and root competition with C. album was 47 and 82% respectively. Thus, under these conditions, the effect of C .album competition for above-ground resources was less than that for below-ground resources during a period up to 16 WAT

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • sugar beet
  • Cultivar
  • Chenopodium album
  • interference
  • Aboveground competition
  • below-ground competition

Aspinall, D. 1960. An analysis of competition between barley and white persicaria.

 

Annals of Applied Biology

48, 637-654.

Clements, F.E., Weaver, J.E. & Hauson, H.C. 1929. Plant Competition: An Analysis of

Community Functions. Washington DC: Carnegi Institute.

De Wit, C.T. 1960. On competition.

Verslagen van Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen

66

, 1-82.

Donald, C.M. 1958. The interaction of competition for light and nutrients.

Australian

Journal of Agricultural Research

9, 421-435.

Donald, C.M. 1963. Competition among crop and pasture plants.

Advances in

Agronomy

15, 1-118.

Farahbakhsh, A. & Murphy, K.J. 1986. Comparative studies of weed competition in

sugar beet.

Aspects of Applied Biology 13, 11-16.

Froud-Williams, R.J. 1992. Weed competition in sugar beet: A practical experiment in

applied plant sciences for use in schools

. Aspects of Applied Biology 32,125-128.

Graan, T. & Ort, D.R. 1984. Quantitation of the rapid electron donors to P 700, the

functional plastoquinone pool, and the ratio of the photosystems in spinach

chloroplast.

Journal of Biological Chemistry 259, 14003-14010.

Holm, L.G., Plucknett, D.L., Pancho, J.V. & Herberger, J.P. 1977. The World's Worst

Weeds

: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Houghton, S.K. 1996. Effect of elevated carbon-dioxide concentration and temperature

on the growth and competition between sugar beet (

Beta vulgaris) and fat-hen

(

Chenopodium album). Aspects of Applied Biology 45, 197-204.

King, J. 1971. Competition between established and newly sown grass species.

Journal

of the British Grassland Society

26, 221-229.

Lotz, L.A.P., Groeneveld, R.M.W. & de Groot, N.A. M.A. 1991. Potential for reducing

herbicide inputs in sugar beet by selecting early closing cultivars. Proceedings of

Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds.

Martin, M.P.L.D. & Field, R.J. 1984. The nature of competition between perennial

ryegrass and white clover.

Grass and Forage Science 39, 247-253.

Pozsgai, J. 1983. Competition between sugar beet and its major weeds. I. Shoot-, rootand

full competition.

Novenytermeles 32, 29-36.

Radosevich, S.R. & Holt, J.S. 1984. Weed Ecology, Implications for Vegetation

Management

. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Remison, S.U. & Snaydon, R.W. 1980a. Effects of defoliation and fertilisers on root

competition between Dactylis glomerata and Lolium perenne.

Grass and Forage

Science

35, 81-93.

Remison, S.U. & Snaydon, R.W. 1980b. A comparison of root competition and shoot

competition between Dactylis glomerata and Holcus lanatus.

Grass and Forage

Science

35, 183-187.

M. Abdollahian & R.J. Froud-Williams

 

18

 

Schweizer, E.E. & Dexter, A.G. 1987. Weed control in sugarbeets (

Beta vulgaris) in

north America. In:

Reviews of Weed Science (L. F. Chester, ed), 113-133.

Champaign: Weed Science Society of America.

Schweizer, E.E. & May, M.J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. In:

The Sugar Beet

Crop: Science into Practice

(D. A. Cooke & R. K. Scott, eds), 485-519. London

Chapman & Hall.

Scott, R.K. & Wilcockson, S.J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet.

 

Annals of Applied Biology

83, 331-335.

Tofinga, M.P., Paolini, R. & Snaydon, R.W. 1993. A study of root and shoot

interactions between cereals and peas in mixtures.

Journal of Agricultural Science,

Cambridge

120, 13-24.

Ulrich, A. 1959. Effect of competition on sugar beet plants in pot experiments.

Journal

of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists

10, 448-458.

Ulrich, A. 1961. Variability of sugar beet plants growing in pots without competition for

light, water and nutrients.

Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet

Technologists,

XI, 595-604.

Wilson, J.B. 1988. Shoot competition and root competition.

Journal of Applied

Ecology

25, 279-296.

Call Paper

 

The First Symposium of

 

Iranian Weed Science

 

25-26 January 2005

 

Plant Pest & Disease Research Institute

 

Tehran, Iran

 

www.ppdri.ac.ir/ISWS