بررسی اثر فاصله ردیف و کنترل علف های هرز در کشت مخلوط ذرت (Zea mays L.) و بادام زمینی (Arachis hypogaea L.) از طریق شاخص های رقابتی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه زابل

چکیده

به منظور بررسی اثر تراکم و وجین علف های هرز و نسبت های مختلف کشت مخلوط ذرت (704) و بادام زمینی (رقم گلی) آزمایشی در سال 1391 در پژوهشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه زابل (چاه نیمه) اجرا شد. این آزمایش به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار انجام گرفت. فاکتورهای آزمایشی شامل نسبت کاشت در 4 سطح (ذرت خالص، 50 درصد ذرت + 50 درصد بادام زمینی، 100 درصد ذرت + 100 درصد بادام زمینی و بادام زمینی خالص)، وجین علف هرز در 3 سطح (بدون وجین، یکبار وجین و دوبار وجین) و فواصل بین ردیف ها با 2 سطح (40 و 50 سانتی متر) در نظر گرفته شد. برای تعیین تیمار برتر کشت مخلوط، شاخص های ارزیابی مانند ضریب نسبی تراکم، شاخص رقابت ، غالبیت و نسبت برابری زمین محاسبه شدند. نتایج نشان داد که سطوح مختلف تراکم بوته و وجین علف های هرز و نسبت های کشت بر شاخص های ارزیابی شده تاثیر معنی داری داشتند . بیشترین مقدار شاخص نسبت برابری زمین (LER) مربوط به ترکیب تیماری صد درصد ذرت + صد درصد بادام زمینی به میزان (04/1) بود. علاوه بر این ضریب نسبی تراکم (K) مشخص نمود که بیشترین مقدار این شاخص در بادام زمینی، ترکیب تیماری عدم وجین با تراکم بیشتر به میزان 41/7 و کمترین مقدار این شاخص در ذرت ترکیب تیماری یکبار وجین با تراکم کمتر به میزان 4/0 تعلق داشت. شاخص تعادل رقابتی ذرت روی بادام زمینی در کلیه ترکیبات تیماری کوچکتر از یک بود و بنابراین بادام زمینی نسبت به ذرت از لحاظ رقابتی برتری داشته است. بر اساس این معیار تیمار مربوط به تراکم کمتر و دوبار وجین دارای بیشترین غالبیت بود. مقدار شاخص غالبیت برای ذرت در کلیه تیمارها منفی بوداما با افزایش تراکم در این گونه، شدت رقابت آن افزایش یافت. بنابراین در کلیه شاخص ها بادام زمینی گونه غالب بود و علت این امر را می توان به استفاده بهتر از منابع و کنترل علف های هرز در این گیاه نسبت داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation effect of density and weeds control in corn (Zea mays L) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) intercropping by competition indices

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdieh Rajaii
  • Mehdi Dahmardeh
  • Isa khammari
  • seyed Mohsen Mousavi nik
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Evaluating yield in intercropping systems is based on selecting compatible plants with appropriate characteristics to establish minimum competition and maximum cooperation, and the application of suitable agricultural practices (crop density and intercropping ratio). The use of plant species with different morphological characteristics in terms of nutrient uptake and utilization of growth environment, and the least competitive species in ecological and environmental factors in a fixed nest causes possibility of presence of two plants in the same ecological niche and better use of resources (Banik et al, 2006; Mushagalusa et al., 2008). Competitive ability of species in the intercropping is estimated using the relative interference parameters and determining the dominant species (Dhima et al., 2007). One of the indicators to evaluate intercropping is competitive ratio which is the competitive ability of the crop in the form of a better expression (Dhima et al., 2007). In general, the intercropping is one of the ways that increases the stability of agroecosystems.

Materials and methods
In order to study the effects of density, weedy and various proportion of corn (704 Variety) and peanut (Goli Variety) intercropping an experiment was conducted in 2012 in the Agriculture Research Station (Chah Nimeh) of Zabol University. The experiment design was factorial in randomized complete block design with three replications. Experiment factors consisted of planting proportions in 4 levels (sole crop of corn, 50% corn +50% peanut, 100% corn + 100% peanut and sole crop of peanut), weedy in 3 levels (non-weedy, once-weedy and twice-weedy) and the space between rows in 2 levels (40 and 50 centimeter). For appointment of dominant treatment, Relative Crowding Coefficient (RCC), Competitive Ratio (RC), Aggressivity and Land equivalent ratio (LER) were calculated. All treatments were planted in a row of peanut and a row of corn. In intercropping alternative treatments and increasing sowing ratio with bush density change (the distance change between two bushes on a row) and variable distance between two rows (40 and 50 cm) were carried out. In monoculture and alternative intercropping systems, the distance between bushes for both plants was identical, but alternative intercropping, a row of corn and a row peanut were planted and there were 30 plants of corn and 40 plants of peanut per unit area on each row. To intensify the intercropping, the distance between plants on the rows decreased and due to variable spacing between rows, number of plants per unit area increased and there were 60 corn plants and 80 peanuts plants per unit area on each row.

Results and discussion
The highest yield for corn (3.18 t.ha-1) was obtained in a intercropping of 100% corn+100% peanut and peanut (9.43 t.ha-1) in 50% corn+50% intercropping of peanut respectively. This means that the proximity of the legumes and grasses can be more productive in terms of intercropping than mono cropping system. The reason could be due to biological nitrogen fixation and increases in light absorption by roots of peanuts. Results indicated that various factors had significant effects on valuated index. The highest and least LER was in 100% corn + 100% peanut and 50% corn + 50% peanut. The highest RCC was for peanut, treatment non-weedy at higher population (7.41) and least was in the corn, treatment once-weedy at lower population (0.4). Corn competitive ratio on peanut in all treatments was less than one, which indicated peanut had advantage over corn. Based on this scale treatment with less density and twice-weedy was more dominate. The Aggressivity index for corn in all the treatments were negative but increased. Therefore in the all indices peanut was the dominant species, this was referred to better use of resources and weed control.

Conclusion
The results showed that both morphology and structure of the components of a intercropping, in dominant and recessive forms are effective. Row spacing and weed control are factors affecting the competitiveness and profitability indicators in intercropping. Peanut was the dominant species and a top competitor in corn and peanut intercropping with higher Aggressivity index, relative interference and higher competition and to the effective use of environmental resources and weed control, which makes it the most serious rival for corn.

Keywords: Aggresivity, Land equivalent ratio, Relative crowding coefficient, Yield

References
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.
Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercropping in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.
Nachigera, G.M., Ledent, J.F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64(2): 180–188.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Aggresivity
  • Land equivalent ratio
  • Relative crowding coefficient
  • yield
1- Agegnehu, G., Ghizam, A., and Sinebo, W. 2006. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 202-207.
2- 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.
3- Bhatti, I.H., Ahmad, R., Jabbar, A., Nazir, M.S., and Mahmood, T. 2006. Competitive behaviour of component crops in different sesame-legume intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. (Pakistan) 8: 165-167.
4- Carruthers, K., Prithviraj, B.F.Q., Cloutier, D., Martin, R.C., and Smith, D.L. 2000. Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forages: yield component response. European Journal of Agronomy 12: 103-115.
5- Daryayi, F., Agha Qalykhany, M., and Chaiechi, M. 2008. Comparison beneficial indicators of the pea and barley mixed cultures in the forage production. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources 21: 35-40. )In Persian with English Summary)
6- Dawo, M.I., Wilkinson, J.M.S., Anders, F.E.T., and Pilbeam, D.J. 2007. The yield and quality of fresh and ensiled plant material from intercropping maize (Zea mays) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87: 1391-1399.
7- De Wit, C.T. 1960. On competition. Verslagen Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen 66: 1–82.
8- Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercropping in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.
9- Fetene, M. 2003. Intra-and inter-specific competition between seedlings of Acacia etbaica and a perennial grass (Hyperemia hirta). Journal of Arid Environments 55: 441-451.
10- Getachew, A., Ghizaw, A., and Sinebo, W. 2006. Yield performance and Land use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian high lands. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 202-207.
11- Hauggaard Nielsen, H., and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Evaluation pea and barley cultivars for complementarily in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crops Research 72: 185-196.
12- Islami khalili, F., Pirdashti, H., and Motaghian, A. 2010. Evaluation yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and broad bean (Vicia faba L.) in the density and mixed culture different combinations by competition indices. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology 1: 94-105. (In Persian with English Summary)
13- Koochaki, A., Nassiri Mohallati, M., Feyzi, H., Amir Moradi, S., and Mandani, F. 2010. Effect of intercropping maize, (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on dry matter yield and LER under control conditions and no weed control condition. Journal of Agricultural Ecology 2: 225-235. )In Persian with English Summary)
14- Launay, M.N., Brisson, S., Satger, H., Hauggaard Nielsen, G., Corre Hellou, E.K., Asynova Ruske, R., Jensen, E.S., and Gooding, M.J. 2009. Exploring options for managing strategies for pea–barley intercropping using a modeling approach. European Journal of Agronomy 2: 85-98.
15- Liebman, M., and Davis, A.S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-input farming systems. Weed Research 40: 27-47.
16- Li, L., Yang, S., Li, X., Zhang, F., and Christie, P. 1999. Interspecific complementary and competitive interactions between intercropped maize and faba bean. Plant and Soil 212: 105-114.
17- 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 Research 71: 123-137.
18- 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 stand in semi-arid south east Kenya. European Journal of Agronomy 14: 1-12.
19- Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping. Second edition. Tehran University publications. Pp. 262. Mushagalusa, G.N., Ledent, J.F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato /maize intercropping: Effect on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64: 180-188.
20- Mutungamiri, A., Margia, I.K., and Chivinge, O.A. 2001. Evaluation of maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars and density for dry land maize-bean intercropping. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 1: 8-12.
21- Nachigera, G.M., Ledent, J.F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64(2): 180-188.
22- Neumann, A., Werner, J., and Rauber, R. 2009. Evaluation of yield density relationships and optimization of intercrop compositions of field-grown pea–oat intercrops using the replacement series and the response surface design. Field Crops Research 114: 286-294.
23- Poggio, S.L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 109: 48-58.
24- Samarajeewa, K.B.D.P., Takatsugu, H., and Shinyo, O. 2006. Finger millet (Eleucine corocanal L. Gaertn) as a cover crop on weed control, growth and yield of soyabean under different tillage systems. Soli and Tillage Research 90: 93-99.
25- Schippers, P., and Kropff, M.J. 2001. Competition for light and nitrogen among grassland species: a simulation analysis. Functional Ecosystems 15: 155-164.
26- Schmidtke, K., Neumann, A., Hof, C., and Rauber, R. 2004. Soil and atmospheric nitrogen uptake by lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. Nudum L.) as monocrops and intercrops. Field Crops Research 87: 245-256.
27- Sirousmehr, A., Javanshir, A., Rahimzadeh Khoye, F., and Moghaddam, M. 2003. Pearl millet and common vetch intercropping. Biaban 2: 250-263.) In Persian with English Summary)
28- VanderMeer, J.H. 1992. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
29- Wahla, I.H., Ahmad, R., Ehsanullah, A.A., and Jabbar, A. 2009. Competitive functions of components crops in some barley based intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology (Pakistan) 11: 69-71.
30- Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping its importance and research needs. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 1-10.
31- Zand, B., and Ghaffari Khaliq, H. 2002. Evaluation of grain sorghum-Cowpea intercropping under different planting patterns. Proceeding of the 7th Iranian Congress of Crop Sciences, 24-26 Aug. Karaj, Iran. (In Persian)
32- Zhang, G., Yang, Z., and Dong, S. 2011. Interspecific competitiveness affects the total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crops Research 124: 66-73.
33- Zua, Y., Zhang, F., Li, X., and Cao, Y. 2000. Studies on improvement in iron nutrition peanut by intercropping with maize on a calcareouse soil. Plant and Soil 220: 13-25.