ارزیابی کمی و کیفی علوفه در کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) و نخود‌فرنگی (Pisum sativum L.) در شرایط دیم مراغه

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه مراغه

2 دانشگاه پیام نور تهران

چکیده

به­منظور بررسی کمیت و کیفیت علوفه کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) با نخود‌فرنگی (Pisum sativum L.) در شرایط دیم، آزمایشی به‌صورت فاکتوریل بر پایه طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه مراغه در سال زراعی 1394 اجرا شد. تراکم­های 100، 150، 200، 250 و 300 بوته در متر‌مربع نخود‌فرنگی به‌عنوان فاکتور اول و الگوهای کشت (کشت مخلوط 75 درصد جو+ 25 درصد نخود‌فرنگی، 50 درصد جو+ 50 درصد نخود‌فرنگی و 25 درصد جو+ 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی) به‌عنوان فاکتور دوم در نظر گرفته شد. نتایج نشان داد که عملکرد کل علوفه تحت تأثیر معنی‌دار الگوی کشت و تراکم‌های مختلف نخود‌فرنگی قرار گرفت. بیشترین (2/289 گرم بر متر‌مربع) و کمترین (1/191 گرم بر متر‌مربع) عملکرد کل علوفه خشک به‌ترتیب در تیمارهای 75 درصد جو+ 25 درصد نخود‌فرنگی و 25 درصد جو+ 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی بدست آمد. همچنین تراکم‌های 100 و 300 بوته در متر‌مربع نخود‌فرنگی بیشترین و کمترین تاثیرگذاری را بر روی عملکرد کل علوفه خشک داشتند. از لحاظ کیفیت علوفه، با افزایش نسبت جو خاکستر علوفه کاهش یافت؛ به‌طوری‌که در تیمار 75 درصد جو+ 25 درصد نخودفرنگی، میزان خاکستر علوفه نسبت به تیمارهای 75 درصد نخودفرنگی+ 25 درصد جو و 50 درصد جو+ 50 درصد نخودفرنگی به‌ترتیب 85/23 و 38/17 درصد کاهش یافت. علاوه بر این، با افزایش تراکم نخود‌فرنگی در کشت مخلوط، درصد پروتئین خام کل نیز افزایش یافت، به‌طوری‌که بیشترین درصد پروتئین خام کل به تیمارهای 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی با تراکم 300 بوته در متر‌مربع+ 25 درصد جو تعلق داشت. همچنین با افزایش تراکم نخود‌فرنگی، میزان دیواره سلولی (NDF) و دیواره سلولی بدون همی‌سلولز (ADF) علوفه کاهش معنی‌داری پیدا کرد. بیشترین نسبت برابری زمین به‌ترتیب در الگوهای 25 درصد جو+ 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی و 50 درصد جو+ 50 درصد نخود‌فرنگی در تراکم 100 بوته در متر‌مربع نخود‌فرنگی به‌دست آمد. به‌طور‌کلی، کشت مخلوط جو با نخود‌فرنگی در تراکم‌های پایین آن با تولید علوفه مناسب از لحاظ کمی و کیفی می‌تواند جایگزین مناسبی برای آیش در شرایط دیم کشور باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Forage Quantity and Quality of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Intercropping System in Maragheh Rainfed Conditions

نویسندگان [English]

  • abdollah javanmard 1
  • Mostafa Amani machiani 1
  • Hamdollah Eskandari 2
1 Maragheh university
2 Payme nour
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Intercropping can provide numerous benefits to cropping systems through increasing total yield and land use efficiency, improving yield stability of cropping systems, enhancing light, water, and nutrient use, improving soil conservation and controlling weeds, insects, or diseases. Moreover, intercropping can facilitate mechanical harvest, whereas legumes in mixtures with cereals can improve the quality of forage. Although cereals are widespread used in livestock nutrition for their high dry matter production and low cost, they have low nutrition value due to their poor protein content. High quality of forage has been notified as an important aspect of forage crop production.
Materials and methods
The experiment was conducted at the faculty of Agriculture, university of Maragheh, Iran as factorial based on randomized complete block design (RCBD). The first factor were 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 plants m-2 of field pea and the second factor were different intercropping patterns based on substitution ratio (25% barley+75% filed pea, 50% barley+ 50% filed pea and 75% barley+ 25% field pea). At harvesting time quantity and quality properties including total forage yield neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), crude protein (CP) and ash were determined. Also, the land equivalent ratio (LER) is defined as the land equivalent needed for growing either crops in intercropping systems compared with the land area needed to each crop monocultures. The LER values were calculated as:



 

(Eq.2)



 

 




Where LER and LERs were land equivalent ratio and standard land equivalent ratio, respectively; Ypp and Ybb were yields of field pea and barley monoculture; and Ypb and Ybp were yields of field pea and barley in intercropping patterns. Analysis of variance of the data and mean comparison based on Duncan’s multiple range test were carried out using MSTATC statistical software.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that the total forage yield was significantly affected by different planting patterns and densities. The highest total forage yield was obtained under 75% barley+ 25% forage pea followed by 50% barley+ 50% forage pea. Also, the lowest total forage yield was observed under 25% barley+ 75% field pea. In Addition to, densities of 100 and 300 plants m-2 of field pea had the highest and lowest effect on total forage yield.  The higher forage production may be due to higher resource use complementarity in time and space between intercropping components. In terms of forage quality, ash forage decreased with increasing proportion of barley. Thus, under 75% barley+ 25% forage pea the forage ash amount decreased 23.85 and 17.38% in comparison to 25% barley+ 75% forage pea and 50% barley+ 50% forage pea. Concentration of the total crude protein enhanced by increasing proportion of forage pea in intercropping. Therefore, the highest percent of the total crude protein was obtained under 25% barley + 75% forage pea with density of 300 plants m-2. In addition,  the content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and ADF significantly decreased with increasing proportion of forage pea. Forage quality improvement in terms of higher crude protein and lower NDF and ADF were attributed to presence of the legume species in intercropping patterns (Stolts & Nadeau, 2014). In most treatments, the LER values were >1, which suggests an overall yield advantage of intercropping compared with monoculture. 
Conclusion
Our trials exhibited that, the highest total forage yield was obtained under 75% barley+ 25% forage pea. NDF and ADF increased with enhancing proportion of barley. So that, the highest and the lowest ADF and NDF content were obtained under 75% barley+ 25% field pea and 25% barley+ 75% filed pea, respectively. The highest LER (1.25) was achieved under 25% barley+ 75% field pea (with density of 100 plants m-2). Generally, barley intercropping with forage pea in lower densities can improve forage production under rainfed conditions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Crude protein
  • Forage ash
  • Forage yield
  • Neutral detergent fiber
  • Pea densities
Aasen, A., Baron, V.S., Clayton, G.W., Dick, A.C., and McCartney, D.H. 2004. Swath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84 (4): 1051–1058.
Ahlawat, I.P.S., and Gangaiah, B. 2010. Effect of land configuration and irrigation on sole and linseed (Linum usitatissimum) intercropped chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 80: 250–253.
Amani Machiani, M., Javanmard, A., Morshedloo, M.R. and Maggi, F. 2018. Evaluation of competition, essential oil quality and quantity of peppermint intercropped with soybean. Industrial Crops and Products 111: 743-754.
AOAC, 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. p. 771.
Armstong, K.L., and Albrecht, K. A. 2008. Effect of plant density on forage yield and quality of intercropped corn and lablab bean. Crop Science 48: 814-822.
Bingol, N.T., Karsli, M.A., Yilmaz, I.H., and Bolat, D. 2007. The effects of planting time and combination on the nutrient composition and digestible dry matter yield of four mixtures of vetch varieties intercropped with barley. Journal of Veteran Animals Science 31: 297–302.
Borghi, E., Crusciol, C.A.C., Nascente, A.S., Sousa, V.V., and Martins, P.O. 2013. Sorghum grain yield, forage biomass production and revenue as affected by intercropping time. European Journal of Agronomy 51: 130-139.
Carr, P.M., Horsley, R.D., and Poland, W.W. 2004. Barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern great plains. Agronomy Journal 96: 677–684.
Chapagain, T., and Riseman, A. 2014. Barley-pea intercropping: Effects on land productivity, carbon and nitrogen transformations. Field Crops Research 166: 18-25.
Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wickman, D., and Knox, M. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley- pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96: 1730-1738.
Contreras-Govea, F.E., Muck, R.E., Armstrong, K.L., and Abrecht, K.A. 2009. Nutritive value of corn silage in mixture with climbing beans. Animal Feed Science and Technology 150: 1-8.
Daneshnia, F., Amini, A., and Chaichi, M.R. 2016. Berseem clover quality and basil essential oil yield in intercropping system under limited irrigation treatments with surfactant. Agricultural Water Management 164: 331–339.
Dawo, M.I., Wilkinson, J.M., Sanders, 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.
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.
Eskandari, H., and Ghanbari, A. 2009. Intercropping of maize and cowpea as whole crop forage: Effect of different planting pattern on total dry matter production and maize forage quality. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj Napoca 37(2): 152-157.
FAO. 2013. Production Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org.
Ghanbari-Bonjar, A., and Lee, H. 2002. Intercropped field beans (Vicia faba L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) for whole crop forage: Effect of nitrogen on forage yield and quality. Agricultural Science 38: 311-315.
Ghanbari-Bonjar, H. 2000. Intercropped wheat (Triticum aestivum) and bean as a low-input forage. PhD Dissertation. Wye College. University of London.
Ghanbari-Bonjar, A., and Lee, H. 2002. Intercropped field beans (Vicia faba) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) for whole crop forage: Effect of nitrogen on forage yield and quality. Agricultural Science 38: 311-315.
Habibi, S.D., Kashani, A., Paknejad, f., Jafari, H., Jami Al-Ahmadi, M., Tookalloo, M.R., and Lamei, J. 2010. Evaluation of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth.) in pure and Mixed cropping with Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to determine the Best combination of legume and cereal for forage production. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5:169-176.
Hail, Y., Daci, M., and Tan, M. 2009. Evaluation of Annual legumes and barley as sole crops and intercrop in spring frost conditions for animal feeding. Yield and quality. Journal Animal Advance 8(7): 1337-1342.
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70: 101–109.
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Gooding, M., Ambus, P. Corre-Hellou, G., Crozat, Y., Dahlmann, C., Dibet, A., Von Fragstein, P., Pristeri, A., Monti, M., and Jensen, E.S. 2009. Pea–barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N2-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crops Research 113: 64–71.
He, X., Xu, M., Qiu, G.Y., and Zhou, J. 2009. Use of 15N stable isotope to quantify nitrogen transfer between mycorrhizal plants. Journal of Plant Ecology 2: 107–118.
Inal, A., Gunes, A., F. Zhang, F., and Cakmak, I. 2007. Peanut/maize intercropping induced changes in rhizosphere and nutrient concentrations in shoots. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 45: 350-356.
Jafari, A.V., Frolich, A.C., and Walsh, E.K. 2003. A note on estimation of quality in perennial rye grass by near in frared spectroscopy. Irish Journal of agriculture and Food Research 42: 293-299.
Jahanzad, E., Sadeghpour, A., Hashemi, M., and Zandvakili, O. 2011. Intercropping Millet with Soybean for Forage Yield and Quality. American Society of America, Northeastern Branch Chesapeake, MD, Abstract.
Kassam, A., and Brammer, H. 2013. Combining sustainable agricultural production with economic and environmental benefits. Geographical Journal 179: 11–18.
Kurdali, F., Sharabi, N.E., and Arslan, A. 1996. Rainfed veteh-barley mixed cropping in the Syrian semi-arid conditions. I. Nitrogen nutrition using 15N isotopic dilution. Plant and Soil 183:137-148.
Lameie-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 rain fed conditions of Zanjan province in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal 2 (29): 169-183. (In Persian with English Summary).
Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., Dhima K.V., Dordas, C.A., and Yaikoulaki 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.
Lithourgidis, A.S., and Dordas, C.A. 2010. Forage yield, growth rate, and nitrogen uptake of faba bean intercrops with wheat, barley, and rye in three seeding ratios. Crop Science 50:2148-2158.
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.
Mohsenabadi, G.R., Jahansooz, M.R., Chaichi, M.R., Rahimian Mashhadi, H., Liaghat, A.M., and Savaghebi, G.R. 2008. Evaluation of barley-vetch intercrop at different nitrogen rates. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 10: 23–31.
Naghizadeh, M., and Galavi, M. 2012. Evaluation of phosphorous biofertilizer and chemical phosphorous influence on fodder quality of corn (Zea mays L.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativa L.) intercropping. Journal of Agroecology 4(1): 52-62. (In Persian with English Summary)
Nakhzari Moghaddam, A. 2016. Effect of nitrogen and different intercropping arrangements of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) on forage yield and competitive indices. Journal of Agroecology 8(1): 47-58. (In Persian with English Summary)
Nassiri Mahallati, M., Koocheki, A., Mondani, F., Feizi, H., and Amirmoradi, S. 2015. Determination of optimal strip width in strip intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Northeast Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production 106: 343–350.
Nabati Nasaz, M., Gholipouri, A., and Mostafavi Rad, M. 2016. Evaluation of forage yield and important agronomic indices of corn as affected by intercropping systems with peanut and nitrogen rates. Journal of Agroecology 8(1): 70-81. (In Persian with English Summary)
Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., and Gholinezhad, E. 2015. Study of agronomic characteristics and advantage indices in intercropping of additive series of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Journal of Agroecology 7(3): 381-396. (In Persian with English Summary)
Ross, S.M., King, J.R., Donovan, J.T.O., and Spaner, D. 2004. Intercropping berseem clover with barley and oat cultivars for forage. Agronomy Journal 96: 1719–1729.
Sadeghpour, A., Jahanzad, E., Esmaieli, A., Hosseini M.B., and Hashemi, M. 2013. Forage yield, quality and economic benefit of intercropped barley and annual medic in semi-arid conditions: Additive series. Field Crops Research 148: 43-48.
Shakour Zadeh, A., Alizadeh, K., Pour Yousef, M., and Ghaffari, A.A. 2012. Study of density and nixed ratios on forage qualitative and quantitative yield in intercropping of barley and vetch under dryland conditions. Iranian Journal of Dry Land Farming 1: 63-74. (In Persian with English Summary)
Stolts, E., and Nadeau, E. 2014. Effect of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality, soil residual N in organically grown forage maize and faba bean. Field Crops Research 169: 21-29.
Strydhorst, S.M., King, J.R., Lopetinksy, K.J. and Harker, K.N. 2008. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agronomy Journal 100: 182–190.
Vasilakoglou, I., and Dhima, K. 2008. Forage yield and competition indices of berseem clover intercropped with barley. Agronomy Journal 100: 1749–1756.
Xu, B.C., Li, F.M., and Shan, L. 2008. Switchgrass and milkvetch intercropping under 2:1 row-replacement in semiarid region, northwest China: Aboveground biomass and water use efficiency. European Journal of Agronomy 28, 485–492.