بررسی خصوصیات فیزیولوژیکی، مورفولوژیکی و عملکرد ارقام سویا (Glycine max L.) در نسبت های مختلف کشت مخلوط

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

چکیده

به منظور بررسی برخی صفات فیزیولوژیکی ارقام سویا (Glycine max L.) در کشت مخلوط، آزمایشی در مزرعه کشاورزی ایستگاه تحقیقاتی شهرستان قائم شهر (مازندران) در سال زراعی 88-1387 در قالب طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی با چهار تکرار اجرا گردید. ارقام پاکوتاه ساری و پابلند 032 به ترتیب در نسبت های کاشت 0:4، 1:3، 2:2، 3:1 و 4:0 با تراکم 45 بوته در مترمربع با استفاده از روش جایگزینی کاشته شدند. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که نسبت های مختلف کاشت اثر معنی داری بر توزیع غلاف در قسمت های مختلف ساقه اصلی و عملکرد دانه سویا داشتند. تعداد غلاف در یک سوم میانی ساقه اصلی در نسبت کاشت 2:2 به میزان 53 درصد بیشتر از کشت خالص رقم 032 (4:0) و در یک سوم فوقانی 56 درصد بیشتر از کشت خالص رقم ساری (0:4) بود. اثر نسبت های کاشت بر شاخص سطح برگ و وزن خشک کل ارقام سویا نیز معنی دار بود. نسبت های کاشت 2:2، 1:3 و 3:1 از شاخص سطح برگ و وزن خشک بیشتری در مقایسه با کشت خالص هر یک از ارقام سویا برخوردار بودند. همچنین نسبت های مختلف کشت مخلوط از نسبت برابری زمین بیشتری در مقایسه با کشت خالص هر یک از ارقام برخوردار بودند و در این بین نسبت کاشت 2:2 بیشترین عملکرد دانه را به میزان 4558 کیلوگرم در هکتار تولید کرد. این امر می تواند به علت افزایش شاخص سطح برگ و توزیع مناسب غلاف ها در ساختار کانوپی ایجاد شده باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of physiological and morphological characteristics and yield of soybean (Glycine max L.) cultivars under different intercropping planting ratios

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Namdari
  • M.A. Behdani
  • G. Arab
چکیده [English]

In order to evaluate physiological and morphological characteristics and yield of soybean (Glycine max L.) cultivars under different planting ratios a field experiment was conducted based on randomized complete block design with four replications at the Gaem shahr Agricultural Research Centre of Mazandran Province, Iran, during 2008. Two soybean cultivars (032 and Sari) were planted in row intercropping in 3:1, 2:2, 1:3 and pure cultures variety planted as replacement method, respectively. The Results indicated that the planting ratio had significant effect on pod dispersal in different parts of main stem and yield of soybean cultivars. The pod number to one third mid in main stem into 53 percentages was more in 032 in pure stand and pod number to one third up into 56 percentages was more in Sari cultivar pure stand. Intercropping ratio showed significant effect on leaf area index (LAI) and total dry weight (TDW) soybean cultivars. Leaf area index (LAI) and total dry weight (TDW) was higher in 2:2, 1:3 and 3:1 planting ratios compared to pure stand in each cultivar. The highest Land equivalent ratios (LER) and seed yield on mean which was 4558 kg.ha-1 were belong to 2:2 planting ratio. In general the highest yield of soybean cultivars was in 2:2 planting ratio which may cause increasing in LAI and suitable pod dispersal in different parts of canopy structure of soybean cultivars.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Land equivalent ratio
  • Leaf Area Index
  • Pod number
1- Ball, R.A., Purcell, L.C., and Vories, E.D. 2000. Optimizing soybean plant population for a short season production system in the southern USA. Crop Science 40: 757-764.
2- Behdani, M.A., and Rashed, M.H. 1996. Competition between soybean cultivars and its effect on yield and yield components. Agriculture Science and Technology. 10: 2. 19-36. (In Persian with English Summary)
3- Biabani, A., Hashemi, M., and Herbert, S.J. 2008. Agronomic performance of two intercropped soybean cultivars. Plant Production 2: 3. 215-222.
4- Bilgili, U., Sincik, M., Goksoy, A.T., and Turan, Z.M. 2005. Forage and grain yield performances of soybean lines. Agricultural Journal 6: 397-402. (In Persian with English Summary)
5- Blad, B.L., and Backer, D.G. 1972. Orientation and distribution of leaves within soybean canopies. Agronomy Journal 64: 26-29.
6- Ebadi, A., Tobe, A., Karbalaee, H., and Khodadoost, Z. 2005. Effects of mineral nitrogen consumption on soybean yield and yield components in water deficit conditions. Pajhouhesh v Sazandegi 71: 51-57. (In Persian with English Summary)
7- Egli, D.B., and Bruening, W.P. 2005. Shade and temporal distribution of pod production and set in soybean. Crop Science 45: 1764-1769.
8- Ephrath, J.E., Terashima, K., Hesketh, J.D., Huck, M.G., and Hummel, J.W. 1993. Shading effect on soybean and corn. Journal of European Biotronics 22: 15-24.
9- Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development soybean descriptions for soybean. Crop Science 1: 929-931.
10- Foroutanpour, K., Dutilleul, P., and Smith, D.L. 1998. Soybean canopy development as affected by population density and intercropping with corn: fractal analysis in comparison with other quantitative approaches. Crop Science 39: 1784-1791.
11- Heatherly, L.G., and Smith, J.R. 2004. Effect of soybean steam growth habit on height and node number after beginning bloom in the mid southern USA. Crop Science 44: 1855-1858.
12- Kokubun, M., and Watanabe, K. 1982. Analysis of the yield determining process of field grown soybeans in relation to canopy structure. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 51: 51-57.
13- Koochaki, A., and Soltani, A. 1998. Agriculture in Dry Lands Principles and Practice. Agricultural Education Publishing. p. 790-792. (In Persian)
14- Kumudini, S., Hume, D.J., and Chu, G. 2001. Genetic improvement in short season soybeans: dry matter accumulation, partitioning and leaf area duration. Crop Science 41: 391-398.
15- Lesoing, G.W., Francis, C.A., 1999. Strip intercropping effects on yield and yield components of corn, grain sorghum, and soybean. Agronomy Journal 91: 807-813.
16- Ma, B.L., Dwyer, M., Costa, C., Cober, E.R., and Morrison, M.J. 2001. Early prediction of soybean yield from canopy reflectance measurements. Agronomy Journal 93: 1227-1236.
17- Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping. Tehran University Publishing. pp. 85-99. (In Persian)
18- Pasary, B., Mazaheri, D., and Paighambary, S.A. 2002. Study of growth analyses of sole culture and intercropping soybean cultivars. Pajouhesh v Sazandegi 54: 37-41. (In Persian with English Summary)
19- Qualset, C.O., and Granger, R.M. 1970. Frequency dependent stability of performance in oats. Crop Science 10: 386-389.
20- Rahimy, M.M., Mazaheri, D., Khodabandeh, N., and Heidari H. 2003. Assessment of product in corn and soybean intercropping in Arsanjan region. Agricultural Science 9: 109-126. (In Persian with English Summary)
21- Redfearn, D.D., Dwayne, R.B., and Devine, T.E. 1999. Sorghum intercropping effects on yield, morphology, and quality of forage soybean. Crop Science 39: 1380-1384.
22- Rezaie, M., and Tajbakhsh, M. 2002. Study of seed yield and some agronomic characters in sole and intercropping of two soybean cultivars under Khoy condition. Iranian Journal of Seed and Plant 18: 273-282. (In Persian with English Summary)
23- Sadeg Zade, S., Syadat, S.A., Sadeg Zadeh, F., and Valizadeh, G. 2002. The Evaluation of intercropping two corn cultivars on different plant density. Agricultural Journal 25(1): 73-78. (In Persian with English Summary)
24- Schweitzer, L.E., Nyquist, W.E., Santini, J.B., and Kimes, T.M. 1986. Soybean cultivar mixtures in a narrow row noncultivatable production system. Crop Science 26: 1043-1046.
25- Yuesheng, W., Jianbing, Q., Junyi, G., and Guangyung, H. 2006. Classification and characteristic of maturity groups of Chinese landraces of soybean. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53: 803-809.