بررسی خصوصیات علوفه‌ای کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) با خلر (Lathyrus sativus L. )، نخود علوفه‌ای (Pisum avestum L.)، ماشک گل خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa L.) و ماشک مجاری (Vicia paninica L.) تحت تأثیر تراکم کاشت در شرایط دیم

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی

2 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران

چکیده

کشت مخلوط با استفاده از عوامل زمان و مکان علاوه بر بهبود روش‌های تولید از جنبه زیست‌محیطی و سلامت انسان توان افزایش تولید محصولات کشاورزی را دارا می‌باشد. به‌منظور بررسی اثر تراکم بوته و نسبت‌های کشت مخلوط گیاهان علوفه‌ای یک ساله شامل: خلر، (Lathyrus sativus L.)، نخود علوفه‌ای (Pisum avestum L.)، ماشک گل خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa L.) و ماشک مجاری (Vicia paninica L.)  بر عملکرد کمی و کیفی جو (Hordeum vulgare L.)، در قالب طرح پایه بلوک کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار در ایستگاه تحقیقاتی دیم کردستان در سال زراعی 93-1392 انجام گرفت. تیمارهای مورد بررسی ترکیبی از پنج سطح تراکم 100، 150، 200، 250، 300 بوته در مترمربع گیاهان علوفه‌ای و چهار نسبت بذور این گیاهان (0: 100، 25: 75، 50: 50 و 100: 0) در کشت مخلوط با جو بودند. نتایج نشان داد که بیشترین و کمترین مقادیر عملکرد علوفه تر و خشک به ترتیب از تیمارهای کشت خالص جو و کشت خالص گیاه علوفه‌ای با تراکم 100 بوته در مترمربع به دست آمد. نسبت‌های 75 درصد نخود علوفه‌ای+25 درصد جو در تراکم 250 بوته در مترمربع و 50 درصد ماشک گل خوشه‌ای+50 درصد جو در تراکم 300 بوته در مترمربع به ترتیب با 94/0 و 86/0 تن در هکتار بیشترین مقادیر پروتئین خام را دارا بودند. نسبت‌های کشت 75 درصد خلر+25 درصد جو در تراکم، 75 درصد نخود علوفه‌ای+25 درصد جو در تراکم، 50 درصد ماشک گل خوشه‌ای+50 درصد جو در تراکم و 50 درصد ماشک مجاری+50 درصد جو در تراکم به ترتیب با 19/1، 26/1، 16/1 و 13/1 نسبت برابری زمین نسبت به سایر نسبت‌های کشت برتری داشتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Study of Forage Characterization of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Intercropped with Grass Pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), Forage Peas (Pisum avestum L.), Vetch (Vicia villosa L.) and Common Vetch (Vicia paninica L.) Affected by Plant Density under Rainfed Condit

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sarhad Bahrabmi 1
  • Weria Weisany 2
1 Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center Kurdistan
2 Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad university,
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Cereals and legumes are considered as important forage crops, because of their nutritional value, especially protein content in legumes and crude fiber in cereals. Intercropping may be a useful strategy to grow crops simultaneously, offering to improve resource utilization such as solar radiation, nutrients and water during growth and development. This is also an important method for sustainable crop production, particularly when inputs are limited. Higher yields have been documented for intercropping of beans and maize, barley and peas, oats and vetches wheat and peas, and wheat and beans. Using time and space, in addition, improving plant production methods in terms of environmental and human health, intercropping can increase agricultural production. In order to increasing soil fertility and improving plant growth and quality, in medicinal plants cultivation, elimination or reduction of chemical fertilizers, is very important. In terms of competition, this means that the components are not competing for the same ecological niches and then the interspecific competition is weaker than the intraspecific competition for a given factor. Intercrops can be more effective than sole crops in preempting resources used by weeds and suppressing weed growth, because complementary patterns of resource use and facilitative interactions between intercrop components can lead to a greater capture of light, water, and nutrients. Several indices such as land equivalent ratio (LER), time equivalent ratio (ATER), and relative value total (RVT), land utilization efficiency (LUE), relative crowding coefficient (K), and aggressivity (A) are used to describe the competition and the economic advantage of intercropped plants.
Materials and Methods
In order to study the effect of plant density and intercropping ratio of annual forage legumes includes: grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), field pea (Pisum avestum L.), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa L.) and hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica L.) on quantitative and qualitative barley performance in a randomized complete block design with three replications were conducted in Kurdistan Agricultural Research (Sanandaj) stations under rainfed condition during 2013 growing season. The treatments included five levels of legume seed densities (100, 150, 200, 250, 300 plant.m-2) and four seeding ratios (100% legume, 75% legume + 25% barley, 50% legume + 50% barley and 100% barley).In this experiment, fresh forage yield, dry matter, crude protein yield and land equivalent ratio (LER) were recorded. The crops were managed according to organic farming practices without pesticide or fertilizer use. No mechanical weeding was performed after sowing. Combined analysis of variance was performed using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) (SAS Institute Inc. 1988). Means of the treatments were compared, using Generalized Linear Model (GLM) method and the least significant difference (LSD) test at the 5% probability level. The data showed normal distribution and no transformation was required.
Results and Discussion
Results showed that the highest and lowest fresh forage yield and dry matter yield were obtained from pure barley and pure legumes in 100 plant.m2 seed density, respectively. Intercropping ratio of 75% field pea+ 25% barley at 250 plant.m-2 density and 50% hairy vetch+ 50% barley at 300 plant.m-2 density with 0.94 and 0.86 t.ha-1 produced maximum crude protein yields, respectively. Intercropping ratio of 75% grass pea+25% barley at 300 plant/m-2 density, 75% field pea+ 25% barley at 200 plant.m-2 density, 50% hairy vetch+ 50% barley at 300 plant.m-2 density and 50% hungarian vetch+ 50% barley at 200 plant.m-2 density, with 1.19, 1.26, 1.16 and 1.13 LER values, respectively, performed the best efficiency in resources utilization in intercropping system.
Conclusion
Based on these results, it can be concluded that intercropping of annual forage legumes includes: grass pea, field pea, hairy vetch and hungarian vetch with barley is a way for increasing productivity per unit area.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Annual forage
  • forage/cereals intercropping
  • Plant density
Albayrak, S., Gular, M., and Tongel, O.M. 2004. Effects of rates on forage production and hay quality of vetch– triticale mixtures. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 3(6): 752-756.
Al-Masri, M.R. 1998. Yield and nutritive value of vetch (Vicia sativa) - barely (Hordeum vulgare) forage under different harvesting regimens. Tropical Grasslands 32: 201-206.
AOAC. 1980. Official methods of analysis (13th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
Aslan, A., and Gulcan, H. 1996. The effect of cutting time to herbage yield and some agricultural characters on the mixtures of common vetch and barley grown as fallow crop under southeaster Anatolia region Turkey. 3rd Rangeland and Forage crops Congress, Erzurum, Turkey. 17-19 June p. 341-354.
Atis, I., Kakten, K., Hatipoglu, R., Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., and Can, E. 2012. Plant density and mixture ratio effects on the competition between commonvetch and wheat. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6(3): 498-505
Balabanli, C., and Turk, M. 2006. The effect of different harvesting periods in some forage crops mixture on herbage yield and quality. Journal of Biological Sciences 6(2): 256-268.
Basbag, M., Gul, I., and Saruhan, V. 1999. The effect of different mixture rate on yield and yield components in some annual legumes and cereal in Diyarbakir Conditions. 3rd Field crops Congress, Adana, Turkey 15-18 November p. 69-74.
Caballero, E., Golcoechea, L., and Hernaiz, P.J. 1995. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rate of common vetch. Field Crops Research 41: 135-140
Ceglarek, F., Rudzinski, R., and Buraczynska, D. 2004. The effect of the amount of seeds sown on the crop structure elements and seed yields of common vetch grown as pure and mixed crops with supporting plants. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie –Sklodowska, Sectio E, Agricultura 59(3): 1147-1154.
Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249–256.
Jahansooz, M.R., Yunusa, I.A.M., Coventry, D.R., Palmer A.R., and Eamus, D. 2007. Radiation- and water- use associated with growth and yields of wheat and chickpea in sole and mixed crops. European Journal of Agronomy 26(3): 275-282.
Karadag, Y. 2004. Forage yields, seed yields and botanical compositions of some legume-barely mixtures under rainfed conditions in semi-arid regions of Turkey. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 3: 295-299.
Krause, D., and Krause, I. 2003. New green manuring Lathyrus sativus variety AC Greenfix available in USA. Lathyrus Lathyrism Newsletter 3: 31-14.
Lithourgidis, A.S., Dhima, K.V., Vasiliakoglou, I.B., Dordas, C.A., and Yiakoulaki, M.D. 2007. Sustainable production of barley and wheat by intercropping commom vetch. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27: 95-99.
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.
Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., Dhima, K.V., Dordas, C.A., and Yiakoulaki, M.D. 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research 99: 106-113.
Marschner, H. 2003. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA 889 pp.
Mazaheri, D. 1993. Intercropping. Tehran University Press, Tehran, Iran. 262 pp. (In Persian)
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.
Mueller, K., and Kristensen, T. 001. N-fixation on selected green manure plants in an organic crop rotation. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 18: 345-363.
Sebahttin, A., Gular, M., and Ozgur Tongel, M. 2004. Effect of seed rates on forage production and hay quality of vetch-tritical mixtures. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 3(6): 752-756.
Sharif Nejad, M., Ghanbari, A., and Sirousmehr, A.R. 2018. Evaluation of the ecophysiological aspects and forage quality indices in the intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Journal of Agroecology 10(1): 267-280. (In Persian with English Summary)
Soya, R.A, and H., Geren. 1996. Effect of barely as nurse crop and rate of mixtures and row spacing on the seed and yield and yield characteristics of common vetch. Turkey 7th Field Crops Congress of Turkey. 25-27 June, Erzurum, Turke p. 328-333.
Tan, M., and Serin, Y. 1996. A research on determination of the most suitable mixture rates and harvest time for different vetch cereal mixtures. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture 27: 475-489.
Tuna, C., and Orak, A. 2007. The role of intercropping on yield potential of common vetch (Vcia sativa L.)/Oat (Aavena sativa L.) cultivated in pure stand and mixtures. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 2(2): 14-19.
Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 220 pp.
Vasilakoglou, I., Dhima, K., Lithourgidis, A., and Eleftherohorinos, I. 2008. Competitive ability of winter cereal- common vetch intercrops against sterile oat. Experimental Agriculture 44: 509-520.
Yau, S.K., Bounejmate, M., Ryan, J., Nassar, A., Baalbaki, R., and Maacaroun, R. 2003. Barely-legumes rotations for semi-arid areas of Lebanon. European Journal of Agronomy 19: 599-610.
Yolcu, H., Polat, M., and Aksakal, V. 2009. Morphologic, yield and quality parameters of same annual forage as sole crops and intercropping mixtures in dry conditions for livestock. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 7: 594-599.
Yucel, C., and Avci, M. 2009. Effect of different ratios of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) – triticale (Ttiticosecale whatt) mixtures on forage yield and quality in Cukurova plain in Turkey. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 15(4): 323-332.