اثر کشت مخلوط افزایشی با زیره سبز (Cuminum cyminum L.) بر کنترل علف‌های هرز و عملکرد بالنگوی شهری (Lallemantia iberica Fischer & C.A. Meyer)

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه تبریز

چکیده

چندکشتی به‌دلیل شباهت ساختاری به اکوسیستم­های طبیعی از نظر تنوع گونه­ای و پایداری زیستی، مورد توجه اکولوژیست­ها قرار گرفته و موجب افزایش تولید، حفظ حاصلخیزی و کنترل فرسایش خاک و بهره­برداری بهینه از منابع محیطی موجود می­شود. از این‌رو، به‌منظور ارزیابی اثر کشت مخلوط بالنگوی شهری (Lallemantia iberica Fischer & C.A. Meyer) و زیره سبز (Cuminum cyminum L.)  بر کنترل علف‌های­هرز و عملکرد بالنگوی شهری، آزمایشی در سال زراعی 93-1392 در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تبریز به­صورت فاکتوریل بر پایه طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار انجام شد. کنترل کامل (a1) و عدم کنترل علف­های هرز (a2) به­عنوان فاکتور اول و سیستم­های مختلف کشت شامل کشت خالص بالنگوی شهری (b1)، کشت خالص زیره سبز (b2) و کشت مخلوط افزایشی با نسبت­های 20% بالنگوی شهری و 100% زیره سبز (b3)، 40% بالنگوی شهری و 100% زیره سبز (b4) و 60% بالنگوی شهری و 100% زیره سبز (b5) به­عنوان فاکتور دوم در نظر گرفته شد. نتایج نشان داد که زیست‌توده علف­های هرز در الگوی کشت 100 به 20 زیره سبز- بالنگوی شهری کم‌تر از کشت خالص بالنگوی شهری بود. بیش‌ترین عملکرد بیولوژیکی، عملکرد دانه و شاخص برداشت بالنگوی شهری به کنترل کامل علف­های هرز در کشت خالص اختصاص داشت. عدم کنترل علف­های هرز در کشت مخلوط 100 به 20 زیره سبز- بالنگوی شهری به تولید کم‌ترین زیست‌توده و عملکرد دانه بالنگوی شهری منجر شد و کم‌ترین شاخص برداشت بالنگوی شهری با کشت مخلوط 100 به 40 زیره سبز- بالنگوی شهری در شرایط عدم کنترل علف­های هرز به­دست آمد. نسبت برابری زمین در الگوهای کشت مخلوط بیش‌تر از یک بود. بالاترین نسبت برابری زمین (به‌میزان 4/1) و مجموع ارزش نسبی (به‌میزان 94/0) به کشت مخلوط 100 به 60 زیره سبز- بالنگوی شهری در شرایط عدم کنترل علف­های هرز مربوط بود. کم‌ترین LER و RVT نیز در شرایط عدم کنترل علف­های هرز و در الگوی کشت 100 به 20 زیره سبز- بالنگوی شهری به­دست آمد. پس می­توان گفت که کشت مخلوط افزایشی زیره سبز- بالنگوی شهری، به­ویژه در شرایط عدم کنترل علف­های هرز، نسبت به تک‌کشتی هر یک از دو گیاه برتری داشته و ضمن ایجاد تنوع و پایداری تولید و مهار علف­های هرز مزرعه، کارایی استفاده از زمین را نیز افزایش می­دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects of Intercropping on Weeds Control and Dragon’s Head (Lallemantia iberica Fischer & C.A. Meyer) Yield

نویسندگان [English]

  • Jalil Shafagh-Kolvanagh
  • Adel Dalayi-Milan
  • Saeid Zehtab-Salmasi
  • Yaegoob Raei
  • Soheila Dastborhan
University of Tabriz
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Intercropping is one of the most common practices used in sustainable agricultural systems which have an important role in increasing the productivity and stability of yield in order to improve resource utilization and environmental factors. Intercropping is an option for reducing weed problems through non-chemical methods. Dragon’s head (Lallemantia iberica Fish. et Mey.) is an annual herb from the Lamiaceae family. This plant mainly cultivated for its grains that contain about 30% (even 35-38%) siccative oil with iodine value between 163 and 203, which is used in foods, but especially in dye and varnish industry. Despite the positive effects of intercropping on weed control and the increment in crop yield and the very important role of dragon’s head in sustainable agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran, information on the effects of these factors on this medicinal plant is scarce. Therefore, in this research, the effect of cumin-dragon’s head additive intercropping in the improvement of the dragon’s head yield and weed control was investigated.
 
Materials and Methods
To evaluate the effect of cumin and dragon’s head additive intercropping on weed control and yield of dragon’s head, a factorial experiment based on a randomized complete block design with three replications was carried out at the Research Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran in 2014. Treatments were two levels of weed control (complete control and no weed control) and sole cropping of two crops as well as three additive intercropping ratios including of 100% cumin + 20% dragon’s head, 100% cumin + 40% dragon’s head, 100% cumin + 60% dragon’s head. At the maturity time, plants of 1 m2 in the middle part of each plot were harvested and biological yield, grain yield per unit area as well as harvest index of dragon’s head were determined. Land equivalent ratio (LER) and relative value total (RVT) were used to quantify the efficiency of the intercropping treatments.
Data were analyzed by MSTAT-C requires and SPSS 16 softwares and the means were compared using Duncan multiple range tests at p ≤ 0.05. Excel software was used to draw figures.
Results and Discussion
The effect of planting pattern was significant on the dry weight of weeds. Intercropping of 100% cumin + 20% dragon’s head had the lowest weed biomass. The highest biological and grain yields of dragon’s head under weedy and weed-free conditions were obtained from the monoculture of the dragon’s head. However, among different intercropping treatments, the highest biological and grain yields of dragon’s head were related to 100% cumin + 60% dragon’s head in both conditions of weed treatment. The maximum harvest index was also recorded for monoculture of dragon’s head under weed-free conditions. The land equivalent ratio was more than 1 in intercropping patterns (LER>1) that shows the positive effect of intercropping on yield. Although weed biomass in 100% cumin + 60% dragon’s was higher than that other planting patterns, the maximum LER (1.42) based on seed yield were observed in this planting system under weedy condition. In weed-free conditions, increasing of dragon’s head density reduced LER, while in the weedy conditions, the increment in dragon’s head density was associated with improved LER, indicating the higher efficiency of intercropping of these two plants under no weed control conditions.
Conclusion
The results of this research showed that the combination of 100% cumin + 60% dragon’s head, especially under weedy condition, was the superior treatment, because of the highest land equivalent ratio (1.42). In general, intercropping of cumin and dragon’s head, especially 100% cumin + 60% dragon’s head, is recommended for the creation of variety and production stability and increasing land-use efficiency under weedy condition.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dragon’s head
  • Intercropping
  • Land equivalent ratio
  • Weed
  • yield
Abbasi-Alikamar, R., Hejazi, A., Akbari, Gh.A., Kafi, M., and Zand, E., 2006. Study on different densities of cumin and chickpea intercropping with emphasis on weed control. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 4(1): 83-94. (In Persian with English Summary)
Ahmadi, A.R., and Daraeimofrad, A.R., 2016. Weed control efficiency of wild safflower (Carthamus oxyacanthus M. Bieb) in replacement series technique of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Journal of Agroecology 8(3): 385-396. (In Persian with English Summary)
Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri-Mahallati, M., 2009. Yield, yield components and potential weed control of intercropping bean (Phaseoluse vylgaris) with sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 7(2): 541-553. (In Persian with English Summary)
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(4): 325-332.
Francis, C.A., 1986. Introduction: distribution and importance of multiple cropping. In: C.A. Francis (Ed.). Multiple Cropping Systems. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, p. 1-20.
Ghosh, P.K., Tripathi, A.K. Bandyopadhyay, K.K., and Mana, M.C., 2009. Assessment of nutrient competition and nutrient requirement in soybean-sorghum intercropping system. European Journal of Agronomy 31: 43-50.
Gomez, P., and Gurevitch, J., 2005. Weed community responses in a corn-soybean intercrop. Applied Vegetation Science 1(2): 281-288.
Hamzei, J., Seyedi, M., Ahmadvand, G., and Abutalebian, M.A., 2012. The effect of additive intercropping on weed suppression, yield and yield component of chickpea and barley. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 2(3): 43-56.
Hashemi-Dezfuli, A., Koocheki, A., and Banaian-Aval, M., 1996. Increasing crop yield. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Publications. (In Persian)
Hemaiaty, S.S., Siadat, S.A., Hemaiaty, F.S., Valizadeh, M., and Fathi, G., 2002. Evaluation of two corn cultivars under mix-cropping system using different plant densities. The Scientific Journal of Agriculture 25(1): 73-88. (In Persian with English Summary)
Ion, V., Basa, A.G., Sandoiu, D.I., and Obrisca, M., 2011. Results regarding biological characteristics of the species Lallemantia iberica in the specific conditions from south Romania. Scientific Papers, UASVM Bucharest, Series A. 54: 275-280.
Javanshir, A., Dabbagh-Mohammadi-Nassab, A., Hamidi, A., and Gholipour, M., 2000. The ecology of intercropping (Translation). Publication of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. 224 p. (In Persian)
Kafi, M., Rashed Mohassel, M.H., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri, M., 2006. Cumin (Cuminum cyminum): production and processing. New Hampshire, USA, Science Publishers, 168 p.
Khan, M., Khan, R.U., Wahab, A., and Rashid, A., 2005. Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of chickpea, lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42(3-4): 1-3.
Liebman, M., and Dyck, E., 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications 3:92-122.
Mahdavi-Damghani, A., Koocheki, A., and Zand, A., 2006. Design and management of ecosystems in sustainable agriculture. 9th Iranian Crop Sciences Congress, 27-29 August, University of Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
Makinde, E.A., Ayoola, O.T., and Makinde, E.A., 2009. Intercropping leafy greens and maize on weed infestation, crop development, and yield. International Journal of Vegetable Science 15(4): 402-411.
Malekzadeh, M., Shafagh-Kolvanagh, J., Zehtab-Salmasi, S., Nasrollahzadeh, S., and Dabbagh-Mohammadi-Nasab, A., 2017. Yield and yield components of lallemantia (Lallemantia iberica Fisch. et Mey) intercropped with anise (Pimpinella anisum L.) under weed infestation. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 27(2): 183-195. (In Persian with English Summary)
Mirhashemi, S.M., Koocheki, A., Parsa, M., and Nassiri-Mahallati, M., 2009. Evaluation benefit of ajowan and fenugreek intercropping in different levels of manure and planting pattern. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 7(1): 259-269. (In Persian with English Summary)
Ofori, F., and Stern, W.R., 1987. Cerel – legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 40: 41-90.
Omidbaigi, R., 1995. Production and processing of medicinal plants. Volume 1, 1st edition, Fekr-e-ruz Publications, 283 p. (In Persian)
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.
Pouramir, F., Koocheki, A., Nassiri-Mahallati, M., and Ghorbani, R., 2010. Assessment of sesame and chickpea yield and yield components in the replacement series intercropping. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 8(5): 747-757. (In Persian with English Summary)
Rajaii, M., Dahmardeh, M., Khammari, I., and Mousavi Nik, S.M., 2016. Evaluation effect of density and weeds control in corn (Zea mays L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) intercropping by competition indices. Journal of Agroecology 7(4): 473-484. (In Persian with English Summary)
Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., 2016. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative traits of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) and basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) in different intercropping patterns with bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Agroecology 8(2): 263-280. (In Persian with English Summary)
Rezvani-Moghaddam, P., Raoofi, M.R., Rashed-Mohassel, M.H., and Moradi, R., 2009. Evaluation of sowing patterns and weed control on mung bean (Vigna radiate L. Wilczek) - black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) intercropping system. Journal of Agroecology 1(1): 65-79. (In Persian with English Summary)
Rostami, L., Mondani, F., Khuramdel, S., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri-Mahallati, M., 2009. Effect of various corn and bean intercropping densities on crop yield and weed populations. Weed Research Journal 1(2): 37-50. (In Persian with English Summary)
Seyedi, M., Hamzei, J., Ahmadvand, G., and Abutalebian, M.A., 2011. The evaluation of possible of replacement intercropping chickpea and barley in Hamedan zone: with emphasis on grain yield and weed control. 1st National Conference Modern Topic in Agriculture, 2 November, Islamic Azad University, Saveh Branch, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)
Vandermeer, J., 1989. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 237 p.
Vandermeer, J., 1990. Intercropping. In C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer and P. Rosset (Eds.). Agroecology. McGraw–Hill, New York, p. 481-516.