تأثیر قطع آبیاری بر عملکرد، شاخص‌های رقابتی و اقتصادی کشت مخلوط جو ( (Hordeum spp. با حبوبات

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی داراب، دانشگاه شیراز

2 شیراز

10.22067/jag.v10i2.55828

چکیده

به‌منظور ارزیابی شاخص‌های رقابتی و اقتصادی کشت مخلوط ارقام جو (Hordeum spp.) با نخود (Cicer arietinum L.) و باقلا ((Vicia faba L. در رژیم‌های متفاوت آبیاری آزمایشی مزرعه‌ای به‌صورت کرت‌های خرد شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه شیراز در سال زراعی 94-1393 اجرا شد. رژیم‌های آبیاری به‌عنوان فاکتور اصلی (آبیاری مطلوب و قطع آبیاری در مرحله شیری شدن دانه جو) و الگوهای مختلف کشت (تک‌کشتی نخود، باقلا، جو نیمروز و جو زهک و کشت مخلوط جو نیمروز+ نخود، جو نیمروز+ باقلا، جو زهک+ نخود و جو زهک+ باقلا با نسبت 1 به 1) به‌عنوان فاکتور فرعی بودند. قطع آبیاری به ترتیب باعث کاهش 20، 43 و 40 درصدی عملکرد دانه ارقام جو، نخود و باقلا و افزایش 9/1، 42 و 2/20 درصدی نسبت برابری زمین جزئی (LER)ارقام جو و حبوبات و نسبت برابری زمین کل شد. شاخص‌های غالبیت (A) و نسبت رقابتی (CR) نشان دادند که در شرایط آبیاری مطلوب، ارقام جو جزء غالب بودند و در شرایط قطع آبیاری، قدرت رقابتی حبوبات افزایش یافت. در شرایط آبیاری مطلوب، شاخص عملکرد از دست رفته واقعی ((AYL ارقام جو، حبوبات و کل به‌ترتیب مثبت، منفی و صفر بود و شاخص سودمندی کشت مخلوط (IA) ارقام جو مثبت و در حبوبات و کل منفی بود. در قطع آبیاری، شاخص عملکرد از دست رفته واقعی و شاخص سودمندی کشت مخلوط ارقام جو، حبوبات و کل، مثبت بود. شاخص نسبت برابری زمین در تمامی تیمارهای کشت مخلوط بالاتر از یک بود. شاخص بهره‌وری سیستم (SPI) نیز برای تمامی تیمارهای کشت مخلوط مثبت بود. ارزیابی شاخص نسبت برابری زمین نشان داد که کشت مخلوط جو شش ردیفه زهک + نخود در شرایط کمبود آب نسبت به دیگر الگوهای کشت مورد مطالعه بین 8/13 تا 36 درصد برتری داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Cutting off Irrigation on Yield and Competition and Economic Indices of Intercropping Barley (Hordeum spp.) with Legumes

نویسندگان [English]

  • H Niksirat 1
  • Ehsan Bijanzadeh 2
  • R Naderi 1
1 College of Agriculture and Natural Resources of Darab, Shiraz University
2 Shiraz University
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Intercropping is an old and widespread practice used in low input cropping systems in many areas of the world. Intercropping systems, especially those employing cereals with legumes, have several major advantages such as higher total yield and better land use efficiency yield stability of the cropping system, better utilization of light, water, and nutrients. The reasons for the higher yield in such systems is that the intercropped species do not compete exactly for the same growth resource niche and thereby tend to use the available resources in a complementary way. Several indices such as land equivalent ratio (LER), competitive ratio (CR), aggressivity (A), actual yield loss (AYL), and intercropping advantage (IA) have been developed to describe the competition and the economic advantage in intercropping. With respect to drought stress in late season of Sothern Iran and the importance of intercropping to reach stability and sustainability in production, the aim of this study was to assess the changes in yield and competition and economic indices of intercropping barley with legumes under late season drought stress.
Materials and Methods
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the competitive and economic indices of intercropping barley cultivars with pea and fababean under different irrigation regimes at College of Agriculture and Natural Resources of Darab, Shiraz University during 2014 growing season. Treatments were included two levels of irrigation regimes (full irrigation and cutting off irrigation at milk development of barley) and 8 cropping treatments consisted of monoculture of Nimroz tow-rowed barley, Zehak six-rowed barley, pea and fababean and intercropping of Nimroz+pea, Nimroz+fababean, Zehak+pea and Zehak+fababean with a ratio of 1:1 which laid out as split plot arrangement in randomized complete block design with three replicates. Competitive and economic indices were including land equivalent ratio (LER), competitive ratio (CR), aggressivity (A), actual yield loss (AYL), intercropping advantage (IA), and system productivity index (SPI). Analysis of the variance was performed using MSTATC ver 2.10 software (1991) and the mean comparisons were performed by LSD test at 5% probability level.
Results and Discussion
Analysis of variance showed that irrigation regimes and cropping treatments had significant effect on barley and legume yields, LERtotal, Atotal, SPI, CR, AYL total, and IAtotal. Cutting off irrigation, decreased 20, 43 and 40% barley cultivars, pea and fababean yield, respectively and increased 1.9, 42 and 20% LER of cereals, legumes and total, respectively. Also, under cutting of irrigation, intercropping of Zehak+pea had the lowest yield loss (13%) while Zehak+fababean had the highest yield loss (27%) among the intercropping treatments. A and CR indices showed that in full irrigation conditions, barley cultivars were dominant species and at drought stress condition competitive power of legumes increased. In full irrigation, actual yield loss indices of barley cultivars, legumes and total was positive, negative and zero, respectively and intercropping advantage indices of barley cultivar was positive and in legumes and total was negative. Likewise, AYL and IA indices, in cereals, legumes and total were positive. The maximum grain yield in barley cultivars, pea and fababean was obtained at sole cropping treatments, while LER of all intercropping treatments was higher than 1. SPI for all of the intercropping treatments was positive.

Conclusion
Evaluating competitive and economic indices showed that intercropping systems of six-rowed Zehak barley cultivar with pea was advantageous than sole cropping system under drought stress condition because of betterland use efficiency and better economics than the other mixtures examined. This mixture could be economically and environmentally promising in the development of sustainable crop production and thus can be adopted by farmers for maximization of economic yields especially under drought stress condition.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Actual yield loss
  • Intercropping Advantage
  • Land equivalent ratio
  • Six-rowed barley
  1. Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A., and Sinebo, W. 2006. Yield performance and land use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. Agronomy Journal 25: 202-207.
  2. Ahmadi, A., Dabbagh Mohammdi Nasab, A., Zehtab Salmai, S., Amini, R., and Janmohammadi, H. 2010. Evaluation of yield and advantage indices in barley and vetch intercropping. Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science 20(2): 76-87. (In Persian with English Summary)
  3. Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K., and Baghchi, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassic campestris var Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185: 9-14.
  4. Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B.K., and Ghase, S.S. 2006. Wheat and chikpea intercropping systems in additive series experiment: advantages and smothering. Agronomy Journal 24: 324-332.
  5. Beheshti, A.R., Soltanian, B., and Sadrabadi, R. 2010. Investigation of density and different sowing rates on grain and biological yield in intercropping of grain sorghum and bean. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 8: 1-11. (In Persian with English Summary)
  6. Borhom, T.I.H. 2001. Studies on water requirements for some crops under different cropping system. MSc Thesis. Faculty Agriculture of Cairo University, Egypt.
  7. Dhima, K.V., Lithorgidis, A., Svasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrop in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.
  8. El-Sherif, A., and Ali, M.M. 2015. Effect of deficit irrigation and soybean/maize intercropping on yield and water use efficiency. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 44: 777-794.
  9. Emam, Y. 2007. Creal Production. 3rd Edition. Shiraz University Press, Shiraz, Iran 190 pp. (In Persian)
  10. Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO. 2011. Crop production statistics, http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah864e/ah864e00.htm.
  11. Ghosh, P.K. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut- cereal fodder intercropping system in the semi- arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research 88: 227-237.
  12. Ghasemi Golezani, K., Zaferani Moatar, P., Reay, Y., and Mohamadi, A. 2010. Response of pinto bean cultivars to water deficite at reproductive stage. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 8: 801-804.
  13. Grimes, D.W., Yamada, H., and Hughes, S.W. 1987. Climate-normalized cotton leaf water potentials for irrigation cheduling. Agriculture and Water Management 12: 293-304.
  14. Hamzei, J., and Seyedi, M. 2013. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) intercropping systems using advantageous indices of interference conditions. Journal of Agriculture Science 6(9): 1-12. (In Persian with English Summary)
  15. Jafari, H., Ebrahimpoor, F., and Niroomand, A. 2013. Crop Physiology. Payame Noor University Press. Tehran, Iran 180 pp. (In Persian)
  16. Jahansooz, M.R., Yunusa, I.M., Coventry, D.R., Palmer, A.R., and Eamus, D. 2007. Radiation and water-use associated with growth and yield of wheat and chickpea in sole and mixed crops. European Journal of Agronomy 26: 275-282.
  17. Javanshir, A., Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab, A., Hamidi, A., and Gholipour, M. 2000. Ecology of Intercropping. Puplications Mashhad University Jihad, Mashhad, Iran 217 pp. (In Persian)
  18. Lamei Harvani, J. 2013. Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yields, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in rainfed conditions of Zanjan province. Iranian Journal of Seed and Plant Production 29(2): 169-183. (In Persian with English Summary)
  19. Lithourgidis, A.S., Vlachostergios, D.N., Dordas, C.A., and Damalas, C.A. 2011. Dry mater yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy 34: 287-294.
  20. Mashhadi, T., Nakhzari, A., and Sabouri, H. 2015. Investigation of competition indices in intercropping of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under nitrogen consumption. Journal of Agroecology 7: 344-355. (In Persian with English Summary)
  21. Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping. University of Tehran Press, Tehran, Iran (Second Edition) 262 pp. (In Persian)
  22. Mead, R., and Willey, R.W. 1980. The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16: 217-228.
  23. Ministry of Agriculture Jihad.Ir. 2015. Available at: web site www.maj.ir. (Verified 6 December 2016)
  24. Morris, R.A., and Garrity, D.P. 1993. Resource captur and utilization in intercropping: water. Field Crops Research 34: 303- 317.
  25. Ogindo, H.O., and Walker, S. 2005. Comparsion of measured changes in seasonal soil water content by rained maize- bean intercrop and component cropping in semi arid region in South Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30: 799- 808.
  26. Parsa, M., and Bagheri, A. 2008. Pulses. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press, Mashhad, Iran 522 pp. (In Persian)
  27. Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., and Gholinezhad, E. 2015. Agronomic characteristics of intercropping of additive series of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Journal of Agroecology 7: 381-396. (In Persian with English Summary)
  28. Stolz, E., and Nadeau, E. 2014. Effect of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality and soil residual N inorganically grown forage maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crops Research 169: 21-29.
  29. Vandermer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Combrige University Press, UK 67 pp.
  30. Weber, E., and Bleiholder H. 1990. Explanations of the BBCH decimal codes for the growth stages of maize, rape, faba beans, sunflowers and peas-with illustrations. Gesunde Pflanzen 42: 308-321.
  31. Weigelt, A., and Jolliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. Journal of Ecology 91: 707-720.
  32. Wood, A.J. 2005. Eco-physiological adaptations to limited water environment. In: M.A. Janks, and P.M. Hasegave (Eds). Plant Abiotic strees. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK p. 1-13.