بررسی جنبه‌های اکولوژیکی الگوهای مختلف کشت مخلوط جایگزینی سویا (Glycine max L.) و ارزن معمولی (Panicum miliaceum L.)

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• گودرز احمدوند ¹
• سمیه حاجی نیا ²

¹ دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

² دانشگاه بوعلی سینا

10.22067/jag.v7i4.43744

چکیده

کشت مخلوط می‌تواند به عنوان یکی از راه‌های افزایش عملکرد و پایداری تولید در واحد سطح مطرح باشد. به منظور بررسی اثر کشت مخلوط جایگزینی سویا (Glycine max L.) و ارزن (Panicum miliaceum L.) بر خصوصیات زراعی، تنوع علف‌های‌هرز و فعالیت زیستی خاک، آزمایشی در مزرعه پژوهشی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا در سال زراعی 1393، در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار اجرا شد. تیمارهای آزمایشی شامل پنج الگوی کشت مخلوط جایگزینی (25 درصد ارزن + 75 درصد سویا (75S:25M)، 50 درصد ارزن + 50 درصد سویا (50S:50M)، 75 درصد ارزن + 25 درصد سویا (25S:75M) و تک‌کشتی سویا و ارزن) بودند. نتایج نشان داد که بیشترین عملکرد دانه در تک‌کشتی سویا و ارزن به ترتیب با 8/219 و 9/171 گرم بر مترمربع، حاصل شد. کشت مخلوط باعث کاهش حداکثر شاخص سطح برگ و افزایش میزان کلروفیل برگ سویا و ارزن گردید. بیشترین تعداد غلاف در بوته و تعداد دانه در بوته سویا و بیشترین تعداد خوشه در بوته ارزن در تیمار 50S:50M بدست آمد. میزان تنفس خاک به طور متوسط در تیمارهای کشت مخلوط به ترتیب 4 و 8 درصد بیشتر از تک‌کشتی سویا و ارزن بود. الگوهای کاشت 50S:50M و 25S:75M در کاهش تراکم و تنوع علف‌های‌هرز موفق‌تر از تک‌کشتی سویا بودند. ارزیابی نسبت برابری زمین نشان‌دهنده برتری تمام نسبت‌های کشت مخلوط سویا و ارزن بر تک‌کشتی آنها بود و تیمار 50S:50M بیشترین نسبت برابری زمین (20/1) را به خود اختصاص داد. سویا و ارزن در نسبت‌های مختلف کشت مخلوط، افت واقعی عملکرد نداشتند. محاسبه ضریب غالبیت نشان داد که ارزن از غالبیت بیشتری نسبت به سویا برخودار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• تنفس خاک
• شاخص‌های تنوع
• شاخص‌های رقابت
• نسبت برابری زمین

---

عنوان مقاله [English]

Ecological aspects study of replacement intercropping patterns of Soybean (Glycine max L.) and Millet (Panicum miliaceum L.)

نویسندگان [English]

• Goudarz Ahmadvand ¹
• Somayeh hajinia ²

¹ Bu-Ali Sina University Hamedan

² Bu-Ali Sina University Hamedan

چکیده [English]

Intercropping is considered for increasing and stability of yield in per unit. In order to study the effects of soybean (Glycine max L.) and millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) replacement intercropping on agronomic traits, diversity of weeds and soil biological activity, an experiment was conducted at the Research Station of Agricultural Faculty, of Bu-Ali Sina University, in 2014. The experiment was carried out as a randomized complete block design with three replications. The replacement intercropping series consisted of monoculture of soybean, monoculture of millet, 75% soybean+ 25% millet, 50% soybean+ 50% millet and 25% soybean+ 75% millet. The results showed that the highest seed yield of 219.8 and 171.9 gm-2 belonged to monoculture of soybean and monoculture of millet, respectively. Intercropping reduced maximum leaf area index of soybean and millet but leaf chlorophyll content of soybean and millet were increased. The highest number of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant in soybean and panicle number per plant in millet were obtained in 50S:50M ratio. Mean soil respiration rate in intercropping treatments was 4 and 8 % higher than the monoculture of soybean and millet, respectively. Intercropping patterns of 50S:50M and 25S:75M were successful in reducing weed plant density and diversity in comparison with soybean monoculture. Results showed that in all intercropping treatments, land equivalent ratio was more than one. Maximum value of land equivalent ratio (2.20) was achieved in 50S:50M treatment. Soybean and millet intercropping at different levels of replacement, didn’t have actual yield loss. Calculating the aggressivity showed that millet was more dominate than soybean. The maximum relative crowding coefficient of soybean was observed in 75S:25M, however that of millet was obtained in 25S:75M and 50S:50M intercroppings indicating that millet is more competitor than soybean.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Competition Index
• Diversity index
• Land equivalent ratio

مراجع

1- Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2010. Yield, yield components and potential weed control of intercropping bean with sweet basil. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 7(2): 541-553. (In Persian with English Summary)

2- Anderson, J.P.E. 1982. Soil respiration. In Page, A.L., and Miller, R.H. (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis Part II. chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy. Madison p. 831-871.

3- Arnon, D.I. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplast. Polyphenoloxide in Beta vulgaris. Journal of Plant Physiology 24: 1-15.

4- Banik, P. 1996. Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crops Science 176: 289-294.

5- Banik, P., Mydia, A., Sarkar, B.K., and Ghose, S.S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping system in an additive series experiment: advantage and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325-333.

6- Baqual, M.F., and Das, P.K. 2006. Influence of biofertilizers on macronutrient uptake by the mulberry plant and its impact on silkworm bioassay. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences 4: 98-102.

7- Baributsa, D.N., Foster, E.F., Thelen, K., Kravchenko, D.R., and Ngouajio, M. 2008. Corn and cover crop response to corn density in an interseeding system. Agronomy Journal 100: 981-987.

8- Booth, B.D., Murphy, S.D., and Swanton, C.J. 2003. Weed ecology in natural and agricultural systems CABI Publishing 303 pp.

9- Darbaghshahi, M.N., Banitaba, A., and Bahari, B. 2012. Evaluating the possibility of saffron and chamomile mixed culture. African Journal of Agricultural Research 7(20): 3060-3065.

10- Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of vetch and cereal intercrops in two ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.

11- Echarte, L., Della Maggiora, A., Cerrudo, D., Gonzalez, V.H., Abbate, P., Cerrudo, A., Sadras, V.O., and Calvino, P. 2011. Yield response to plant density of maize and sunflower intercropped with soybean. Field Crops Research 121: 423-429.

12- Egli, D.B., and Bruening, W.P. 2005. Shade and temporal distribution of pod production and set in soybean. Crop Science 45: 1764-1769.

13- Eslami Khalili, F., Pirdashti, H., and Motaghian, A. 2011. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) yield in different density and mixture intercropping via competition indices. Journal of Agroecology 3(1): 94-105. (In Persian with English Summary)

14- Garcia Orenes, F., Roldan, A., guerrero, C., Mataix Solera, J., Navarro Pedreno, J., Gomez, I., and Mataix Beneyto, J. 2007. Effect of irrigation on the survival of total coliforms in three semiarid soils after amendment with sewage sludge. Waste Management 27(12): 1815-1819.

15- Ghanbari, A., Nasirpour, M., and Tavassoli, A. 2010. Evaluation of ecophysiological characteristics of intercropping of millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Journal of Agroecology 4: 556-564. (In Persian with English Summary)

16- Ghosh, P.K. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research 88: 227-237.

17- Ghosh, P.K., Manna, M., Bandyopadhyay, K., Ajay, A., Tripathi, A., Wanjari, R.H., Hati, K.M., Misra, A.K., Acharya, C.L., and Subba Rao, A. 2006. Interspecific interaction and nutrient use in soybean/sorghum intercropping system. Agronomy Journal 98: 1097-1108.

18- Hosseini, S.M.B., Mazaheri, D., Jahansouz, M.R., and Yazdi Samadi, B. 2003. The effects of nitrogen levels on yield and yield components of forage millet (Pennisetum americanum) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in intercropping system. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 59: 60-67. (In Persian with English Summary)

19- Jahani, M., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2008. Comparison of different intercropping arrangements of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris M.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 6(1): 67-78. (In Persian with English Summary)

20- Javanshir, A., Dabbagh, A., and Hamidi, A. 2000. The ecology of intercropping. Jihad Daneshgahi of Mashhad Press. (In Persian)

21- Lithourgidis, A.S., Vlachostergios, D.N., Dordas, C.A., and Damalas, C.A. 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy 34: 287-294.

22- Lin, C.W., Chen, Y.C., Huang, J., and Tu, T. 2007. Temporal variation of plant height, plant cover and leaf area index in intercropped area of Sichuan,China. Chinese Journal of Ecology 26: 989- 994.

23- Maffei, M., and Mucciarelli, A. 2003. Essential oil yield in peppermint/soybean strip intercropping. Field Crops Research 84: 229-240.

24- Mazaheri, D., Pasarive, S., and Peyghambari, A. 2002. Study and investigation growth analysis in monoculture and multicultural of soybean cultures. Journal of Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 54: 37-54. (In Persian with English Summary)

25- Mohammed, I.B., Olufajo, O., Singh, B., Miko, S., and Mohammed, S.G. 2008. Growth and development of components of millet/cowpea intercrop in northern Nigeria. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 3: 7-13.

26- Mushagalusa, G.N., 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: 180-188.

27- 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.

28- Raei, Y., Bolandnazar, S.A., and Dameghsi, N. 2011. Evaluation of common bean and potato densities effects on potato tuber yield in mono-cropping and intercropping systems. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 21(2): 131-142. (In Persian with English Summary)

29- 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.

30- Rezvan Beydokhti, S. 2005. Comparison of different intercropping arrangement of corn and bean. MSc thesis, College of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)

31- Safari, F. 2007. Effect of planting date and plant density on yield of millet MSc dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Gorgan, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)

32- Shahmoradi, S. 2003. Effects of drought stress on the quantity and quality of soybean cultivars and advanced lines. MSc dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)

33- Shaygan, M., Mazaheri, D., Rahimian Mashhadi, H., and Peyghambari, S.A. 2008. Effect of planting date and intercropping maize and foxtail millet on their grain yield and weeds control. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 10: 31-46. (In Persian with English Summary)

34- Sirousmehr, A., Javanshir, A., Rahimzadeh Khoye, F., and Moghaddam, M. 2003. Pearl millet and common vetch intercropping. Journal of Biaban 2: 250-263. (In Persian with English Summery)

35- Shivaraum, H.S., and Shivashankar, K. 1994. A new approach of canopy architecture in assessing complimentarily of intercrops. Indian Journal of Agronomy 39: 179-187.

36- Tavassoli, A., Ghanbari, A., Ahmadi, M.M., and Heydari, M. 2010. The effect of fertilizer and manure on forage and grain yield of and bean in intercropping. Iranian Journal of Agronomy Research 8(2): 96-114. (In Persian with English Summery)

37- Thorsted, M.D., Olesen, J.E., and Weiner, J. 2006. Width of clover strips and wheat rows influence grain yield in winter wheat/clover intercropping. Field Crops Research 95: 280-290.

38- Xu, B., Shan, L., Zhang, S., Deng, X., and Li, F. 2008. Evaluation of switch grass and sainfoin intercropping under 2:1 row-replacement in semiarid region, northwest China. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(22): 4056-4067.

39- Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Forestry 32: 111-119.