ارزیابی عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد ذرت و سویا در کشت مخلوط در شرایط رقابتی تاج خروس و تاتوره

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری

2 استاد دانشگاه

3 محقق

چکیده

به منظور بررسی نقش کشت مخلوط ذرت / سویا بر کارایی استفاده از منابع و جلوگیری از رشد علف‌های هرز ، آزمایشی در سال 1385 در مزرعة پژوهشی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تهران واقع در کرج به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح  بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با 3 تکرار انجام شد. عوامل مورد بررسی عبارت بودند از: 5 نسبت اختلاط دو گونه گیاه زراعی ذرت (Zea  mays) و سویا (Glycine max) شامل: 0 % سویا: 100 % ذرت  (P1)، 25 % سویا: 75 % ذرت  (P2)، 50 % سویا: 50 % ذرت (P3)، 75 % سویا: 25 % ذرت  (P4)، 100 % سویا: 0 % ذرت  (P5)، و 4 سطح آلودگی علف‌هرز تاج خروس (Amaranthus  retroflexus)  و تاتوره (Datura stramonium) شامل: عاری از علف هرز (W1)، آلوده به تاج‌خروس در تمام فصل (W2)، آلوده به تاتوره در تمام فصل (W3) و آلودگی  توام  به تاج خروس و تاتوره در طول فصل (W4). تراکم علف‌های هرز در هر کرت 15 بوته در متر از طول ردیف بود. نتایج نشان داد که بیشترین میزان عملکرد ذرت (8/9627 کیلوگرم در هکتار)  در تیمار P2W1 و کمترین آن (7/3916 کیلوگرم در هکتار)  در تیمار  P4W4مشاهده شد. ولی بالاترین میزان عملکرد سویا (0/ 5050 کیلوگرم در هکتار) در تک‌کشتی عاری از علف هرز و کمترین میزان آن (67/365 کیلوگرم در هکتار) در تیمار P2W4 دیده شد.  بالاترین میزان اجزای عملکرد ذرت مانند تعداد ردیف دانه در بلال، تعداد دانه در ردیف و وزن هزار دانه  در تیمار P4W1 بدست آمد، در صورتی که، بالاترین  میزان اجزای عملکرد سویا از قبیل تعداد غلاف در بوته، تعداد دانه در غلاف و وزن هزار دانه در تک‌کشتی سویا  و در شرایط بدون علف هرز (تیمار (P5W1 حاصل شد. این ترکیب تیماری همچنین بیشترین میزان شاخص برداشت سویا را به خود اختصاص داد.  این بدان معناست که با کاهش سهم یا نسبت ذرت در مخلوط،  اجزای عملکرد ذرت و سویا افزایش می‌یابد. بالاترین میزان زیست توده علف‌هرز  (73/376 گرم در متر مربع) در تک‌کشتی سویا آلوده به  تاتوره  بدست آمد. بدین ترتیب کشت‌ مخلوط ذرت و سویا در مقایسه با تک‌کشتی کاهش‌های معنی‌داری در زیست توده  علف های هرز  ایجاد نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Yield and Yield Components Response of Corn/Soybean Intercrop to Simultaneous Competition of Redroot Pigweed and Jimson weed

نویسندگان [English]

  • faeze zaefarian 1
  • mohammad aghalikhani 2
  • hamid rahimian mashadi 2
  • eskandar zand 3
  • mohammad rezvani 2
چکیده [English]

In order to investigate the role of intercropping of corn/soybean on the resource use efficiency and suppression of weeds, a field experiment was carried out at the Faculty of Agriculture Research Farm, University of Tehran in 2006. Treatments were arranged in a factorial experiment based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were five different mixing ratios of corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max ) consisting  of  100% :  0%  (P1), 75%  : 25%  (P2), 50%  : 50%  (P3), 25%  : 75%  (P4) and 0% : 100%  (P5) . The weed infestation consisted of one weed free (W1), and three levels of weed infestation of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) (W2), jimson weed (Datura stramonium) (W3) and a simultaneous presence of redroot pigweed and jimson weed (W4). Weed density for both species was 15 plant m-1 of crop row in weed infested treatments. The Correspondence to: M. Aghaalikhani, maghaalikhani@modares.ac.ir results showed the highest yield of corn (9627.8 kg ha-1) was obtained in the P2W1 treatment, and the lowest (3916.7 kg ha-1) was in P2W4. But the highest yield of soybean (5050.00 kg ha-1) was seen in P5W1 and the lowest (365.67 kg ha-1) in P2W4. Some yield components of corn such as the kernel row number per ear , kernel number  per  row, and 1000 kernel weight were  highest for P4W1, but the harvest Index was highest (0.45) for P2W1 and lowest (0.20) for P4W4. Some yield components of soybean such as pod number per plant, grain number per pod and 1000 grain weight were highest in the monoculture of soybean and the weed free treatment (P5W1). This treatment had the highest soybean harvest index.  It could be concluded that decreasing the corn/soybean ratio in the cropping rows will increase the corn and soybean yield components. The highest weed biomass (376.73 g m-2) was obtained in the monoculture of soybean infested with jimson weed and redroot pigweed. Therefore, it could be stated that corn/soybean intercropping significantly reduced the weed biomass comparing to both monocultures.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Intercropping
  • grain corn
  • Soybean
  • redroot pigweed
  • jimson weed
  • Weed competition
Allen, J. R. 1983. Leaf number and maturity in hybrid corn. Agronomy Journal. 65: 233-235.

 

 Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 74: 19–31.

 

Banik, P. and Bagchi, D. K. 1994. Evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa) and legume intercropping in upland situation of Bihar plateau. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 64: 364–368.

 

Banik, P. Midya, A.,  Sarkar, B. K. and   Ghose, S. S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy. 24: 325–332.

 

Brummer, E. C. 1998. Diversity, stability, and sustainable American    agriculture.   Agronomy Journal. 90: 1–2.

 

Baumann, D. T., Kropff, M. J. and Bastiaans, L. 2000. Intercropping leek to suppress weeds. Weed Research. 40(4): 359-374.

 

Carruthers, K. Prithiviraj, B., Cloutier, Q. Fe. D., Martin, R.C. and Smith, D. L. 2000. Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forages: yield component responses. European Journal of Agronomy. 12: 103-115.

 

Carruthers, K., Cloutier, Fe. and Smith, D. L. 1998. Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forages: weed control by intercrops combined with interrow cultivation. European Journal of Agronomy. 8: 225-238.

 

Evans, L. T. 1998. Feeding the Ten Billion, Plants and Population Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 

Exner, D. N. and Cruse, R.M. 1993. Interseeded forage legume potential as winter ground cover, nitrogen source, and competition. Journal of Production of Agriculture. 6: 226–231.

 

Fukai, S. and Trenbath, B. R. 1993. Processes determining intercrop productivity and yields of component crops. Field Crops Research. 34: 247–271.

 

Giller, K.E. Cadisch, G. 1995. Future benefits from biological nitrogen fixation:  an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil. 174: 225–277.

 

Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. Andersen, M. K., Jørnsgaard, B. and Jensen, E. S.  2006. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crops Research. 95: 256–267.

 

Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P. and Jense, E. S. 2001. Interspecific competition, N use and interference withweeds in pea-barley intercropping. Field Crops Research. 70: 101-109.

 

Hayder, G., Mumtaz, . S. S., Khan, A. and Khan, S. 2003. Maize and soybean intercropping under various levels of soybean seed rates. Asian Journal of Plant Science. 2(3): 339-341.

 

Holm, L. Doll, J. Holm, E. Pancho, J. and Herberger J. 1996. World weed, natural histories and disribution. John wiley & sons, Inc.

 

 Hume, D. F., Shanmugasundaram, S.  and Beversdorf, W. I. D.  1985. Soyabean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill ). In: Summerfield R.J., Roberts, E.H. (Eds.), Grain Legume Crops. William Collins, London, pp. 391–432.

 

Jeyabal, A. and Kuppuswamy, G. 2001. Recycling of organic wastes for the production of vermicompost and its response in rice–legume cropping system and soil fertility. European Journal of Agronomy. 15: 153–170.

 

Li, L., Sun, J., Zhang, F., Li, X., Yang, S. and Rengel, Z. 2001. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping, I. Yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Field Crops Research71: 123-137.

 

Liebman, M. and Dyck. E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecology Applied. 3(1):92-122.

 

     Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-input farming systems. Weed Research. 40: 27– 47.

 

Maingi, M. J., Shisanya, A.C., Gitonga, M. N. and Hornetz, B. 2001. Nitrogen fixation by common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in pure and mixed stands in semi arid South east Kenya. European Journal of Agronomy. 14: 1–12.

 

Marchiol, L., Miceli, F., Pinosa, M. and Zerbi, G. 1992. Intercropping of soybean and maize for silage in northern Italy. Effect of nitrogen level and plant density on growth, yield, and protein content. European Journal of Agronomy. 1: 207–211.

 

Martin, R. C., Voldeng, H. C. and Smith, D. L. 1990. Intercropping corn and soybean in a cool temperate region: yield, protein and economic benefits. Field Crops Research. 23:295–310.

 Morris, R. A. and Garrity, D. P. 1993. Resource capture and utilization in intercropping: non-nitrogen nutrients. Field Crops Research. 34: 303-317.

 

Poggio, S. L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 109: 48–58.

 

Regnier; E. E. and Stoller, E. W.  1989. The Effects of Soybean (Glycine max) Interference on the Canopy Architecture of Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Science. 37: 187-195.

 

SAS Institute, 2002. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Version 8, SAS Institute, Cary, North    Carolina, USA.

 

Singh, N. B., Singh, P.P. and Nair, K. P. P. 1986. Effect of legume intercropping on enrichment of soil nitrogen, bacterial activity and productivity of associated maize crops. Experimental Agriculture. 22: 339–344.

 

 Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Response of maize to plant population. II: Reproductive development on yield and yield adjustment. Agronomy Journal 80: 935-945.

 Thiyagarajan, C. R. 1994. Studies on the quality of seeds of component crops in maize based intercropping. Madras Agricultural Journal. 81: 46-47.

 

Van Kessel, C. and Hartley, H. 2000. Agricultural management of grain legumes: has it led to an increase in nitrogen fixation. Field Crops Research. 65: 165-181.

 

Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

 

Vandermeer, J. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Annual Review Ecological Systems. 26: 201–224.

 

 Vandermeer, J., Van Noordwijk, M., Anderson, J., Ong, C. and Perfecto, I. 1998. Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: concepts and issues. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment. 67: 1–22.

 

Weil, R. R. and Mc fadden, M. E. 1991. Fertility and weed stress effects on performance of maize/soybean intercrop. Agronomy Journal. 83:717-721.

 

Zimdahl, R. L. 1993. Fundamentals of Weed Science. Academic Press, New York.