بوم شناسی کشاورزی

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

اثر سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی بر کیفیت علوفه در کشت مخلوط تریتیکاله (×Triticosecale Wittmack) و ماشک (Vicia sativa L.)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 گروه تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
2 گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
چکیده
این آزمایش به‌منظور ارزیابی اثر سیستم­های مختلف خاک‌ورزی و کشت مخلوط بر برخی ویژگی‌های کیفیت علوفه به‌صورت کرت‌های خرد‌شده برپایه بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سال 1399-1398 در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه کردستان انجام شد. سیستم­های خاک‌ورزی به‌عنوان عامل اصلی در سه سطح خاک‌ورزی رایج (گاوآهن برگردان‌دار + دیسک + ماله)، کم‌خاک‌ورزی (چیزل) و بدون خاک‌ورزی اعمال شد. الگوهای کشت مخلوط به‌عنوان عامل فرعی در شش سطح شامل کشت خالص ماشک (Vicia sativa L.)، کشت خالص تریتیکاله (×Triticosecale Wittmack)، کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 80 درصد تریتیکاله + 20 درصد ماشک، کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 60 درصد تریتیکاله + 40 درصد ماشک، کشت مخلوط جایگزینی40 درصد تریتیکاله + 60 درصد ماشک و کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 20 درصد تریتیکاله + 80 درصد ماشک بود. نتایج نشان داد که افزایش ماشک در الگوهای کشت باعث افزایش پروتئین خام علوفه شد. بیشترین الیاف نامحلول در شوینده خنثی ماشک در سیستم­های خاک‌ورزی رایج، کاهش‌یافته و بدون خاک‌ورزی مربوط به تیمار کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 20 درصد تریتیکاله با 80 درصد ماشک بود. کمترین پروتئین خام علوفه ماشک در هر سه سیستم خاک‌ورزی رایج، کاهش‌یافته و بدون خاک‌ورزی در کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 20 درصد تریتیکاله با 80 درصد ماشک ثبت شد. بیشترین مقدار الیاف نامحلول در شوینده اسیدی در گیاه ماشک (15/47 درصد) و تریتیکاله (09/45 درصد) مربوط به تیمار خاک‌ورزی رایج بود. بیشترین خاکستر علوفه (23/12 درصد) در تیمار کشت خالص ماشک و کمترین میزان این صفت نیز در تیمار کشت خالص تریتیکاله (21/7 درصد) مشاهده شد. ارتفاع بوته ماشک و ترتیتکاله تحت تأثیر اثرات ساده خاک‌ورزی و کشت مخلوط معنی­دار گردید. بیشترین ارتفاع بوته ماشک (76/38 سانتی­متر) و تریتیکاله (76 سانتی­متر) در تیمار خاک‌ورزی رایج و کمترین ارتفاع بوته ماشک (18/36 سانتی­متر) و تریتیکاله (82/71 سانتی­متر) در تیمار بدون خاک‌ورزی بود. در سیستم‌های خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی، کشت مخلوط در نسبت 80 درصد تریتیکاله با 20 درصد ماشک نسبت برابری زمین را بهبود بخشید. براساس نتایج حاصل از پژوهش حاضر می­توان اظهار داشت که کاربرد روش­های خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی به­ویژه در شرایط دیم سبب تغییرات مثبت کیفیت علوفه در گیاه ماشک و تریتیکاله شد. بهره‌برداری از سیستم‌های کم‌خاک‌ورزی و کشت مخلوط در این پژوهش، علاوه‌بر بهبود کیفیت علوفه سبب افزایش نسبت برابری زمین گردید.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

The Effect of Different Tillage Systems on Forage Quality in a Triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack)–Vetch (Vicia sativa L.) Intercropping

نویسندگان English

Arman Jamali 1
Gholamreza Heidari 1
Yousef Sohrabi 1
Zahed Sharifi 2
1 Department of Production and Plant Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2 Department of Soil Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
چکیده English

Introduction
Global food demand is rising, and by 2050 the world population is expected to reach about 9 billion. To meet this demand under increasing environmental pressures, improving the efficiency of production factors through sustainable agricultural practices is essential. Conventional tillage and sole-cropping systems often suffer from limited ground cover and associated soil degradation. Intercropping systems, especially mixtures of cereals and legumes, can enhance resource use efficiency, improve soil quality via biological nitrogen fixation, and reduce soil erosion while maintaining or increasing forage yield and quality. This study focuses on the performance of intercropping two forage crops, vetch (Vicia sativa L.) and triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack), under different tillage regimes, aiming to identify combinations that optimize forage quality under dryland conditions in Kurdistan, Iran.
 
Materials and Methods
The field experiment was conducted during the 2019–2020 growing season at the Kurdistan University experimental farm. The trial employed a split-plot based on a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The main plots consisted of three tillage treatments: conventional tillage (plough-back, disc, and harrow), reduced tillage (chisels), and no-tillage. Subplots represented six sowing patterns: (I1v) pure vetch, (I1t) pure triticale, (I2) 80% triticale+20% vetch, (I3) 60% triticale+40% vetch, (I4) 40% triticale+60% vetch, and (I5) 20% triticale+80% vetch. Subplot dimensions and spacings were standardized, with three 5 m by 1.5 m main plots per replicate. Quality parameters of the forage were assessed at anthesis by harvesting excluding edge effects. The laboratory analyses included crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and ash content, following standard procedures. Plant height and dry matter (DM) yield were also recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.1. Means were compared with LSD at 5% probability. Figures were produced in Excel.
 
Results and Discussion
 Analysis of variance showed significant interactions between tillage and intercropping on several forage quality traits in both species. Specifically, the interaction affected the acid detergent fiber (ADF) and crude protein (CP) of vetch forage at the 1% level, and also influenced the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and CP of vetch and triticale in different contexts. Overall, ADF and ash contents, and CP of vetch, were sensitive to tillage × intercropping, whereas NDF showed pronounced responses to tillage and intercropping independently in many treatment combinations. Crude protein was higher in vetch pure stands and generally increased under no-tillage compared with conventional tillage. In the intercropping setups, CP of triticale tended to rise as vetch proportion increased, indicating a positive effect of legume association on the protein content of the cereal component, likely due to better nitrogen availability and improved canopy light capture under mixed stands. The content of ADF (and thus digestibility potential) and NDF was notably affected by tillage and intercropping. Pure cropping with conventional tillage tended to exhibit higher NDF and ADF values compared with no-till and mixed stands, suggesting lower forage digestibility in traditional systems. Intercropping, especially with favorable cereal-legume ratios, reduced fiber concentrations in some treatments, aligning with improved forage quality reported in other cereal-legume mixtures. Ash content was mainly driven by intercropping. Among the treatments, pure vetch exhibited the highest ash content, while pure triticale had the lowest, with mixed patterns showing intermediate values. This pattern reflects changes in mineral content and tissue composition influenced by species mix and resource availability. Dry matter did not show significant differences among tillage systems in this study. The land equivalent ratio (LER) analysis demonstrated that intercropping, particularly at ratios of triticale 80% + vetch 20% improved LER across all tillage treatments, with the highest LER observed under conservation tillage systems.
 
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that tillage systems and intercropping patterns significantly influence the quality of forage from vetch and triticale under dry Mediterranean conditions. Intercropping, particularly with balanced cereal–legume ratios, improved forage quality by modulating Crude Protein and fiber fractions (Acid Detergent Fiber and Natural Detergent Fiber), and reduced ash content relative to pure stands under some tillage regimes. No-tillage tended to enhance CP for vetch, and under intercropping, CP of the cereal component increased, suggesting improved nitrogen use efficiency and forage nutritive value in conservative farming systems. Intercropping, especially at an 80:20 ratio, improved LER, particularly under conservation tillage systems. Practically, adopting conservation or reduced tillage in combination with carefully designed vetch–triticale mixtures can enhance forage quality and soil health in semi-arid environments.







 




 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Conservation tillage
Crude protein
Digestibility
Dry matter
Soil management

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

  1. Ahmadi, H., Mirseyed Hosseini, H., Moshiri, F., Alikhani, H.A., & Etesami, H. (2024). Impact of varied tillage practices and phosphorus fertilization regimes on wheat yield and grain quality parameters in a five-year corn-wheat rotation system. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 14717. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65784-w
  2. Akinola, F.F., Fasinmirin, J.T., Olanrewaju, O.O., Ewulo, B.S., & Olorunfemi, I.E. (2023). Changes in soil physical and mechanical properties under different tillage and cropping systems in alfisol soil of southwestern Nigeria. Farming Systems, 1(3), 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100050
  3. (2005). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 18th Edition, AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD.
  4. Arzani, H., Motamedi (Torkan), J., Yari, R., Ghasemi Aryan, Y., & Khatir Nameni, J. (2013). Forage quality of important range species in Pashaylogh-e-Maravetapeh rangeland ecosystem in Golestan province. Journal of Plant Ecosystem Conservation, 1(1), 87-103. (In Persian with English abstract).
  5. Ashoori, N., Abdi, M., Golzardi, F., Ajali, J., & Ilkaee, M.N. (2021). Forage potential of sorghum-clover intercropping systems in semi-arid conditions. Bragantia, 80, e1421. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20200423
  6. Audenaert, K., Troch, V., Landschoot, S., & Haesaert, G. (2014). Biotic stresses in the anthropogenic hybrid triticale (Triticosecale Wittmack): Current knowledge and breeding challenges. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 140, 615-630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-014-0498-2
  7. Badakhshan, S., Amiri-Nejad, M., Tohidi-Nejad, E., & Parsa Motlagh, B. (2021). Evaluation of yield and quality forage in intercropping Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolus Gray) and millet cultivars. Journal of Agroecology, 13(2), 291-305. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v13i2.83847
  8. Barnes, E., Amit, J.J., Stevan, Z.K., Peter, H.S., & John, L.L. (2019). Soybean and common ragweed growth in monoculture and mixture. Weed Technology, 33(3), 481-489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2018.119
  9. Baum, C., El-Tohamy, W., & Gruda, N. (2015). Increasing the productivity and product quality of vegetable crops using mycorrhizal fungi. A review. Scientia Horticulturae, 187, 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.03.002
  10. Çerit, N., & Güllap, M.K. (2021). The effects of nitrogen and vermicomposts applied in different dosages and combinations on the triticale silage (X Triticosecale ) quality. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science, 2(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.51801/turkjrfs.894198
  11. Chen, H., Daic, Z., Allison, M., Zheng, J., Xuc, J., & Schadt, W. (2020). Global meta-analyses show that conservation tillage practices promote soil fungal and bacterial biomass. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 293(1), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106841
  12. Dahmardeh, M., Ghanbari, A., Syasar, B., & Ramroudi, M. (2013). Effect of intercropping maize (Zea mays) with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) on green forage yield and quality evaluation. Asian Journal of Plant Science, 8(3), 235-239. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2009.235.239
  13. Dareini, E., Jowkar, M., & Semiromi, T. (2018). Effect of maize (Zea mays) and sesbania (Sesbania sesban Merr.) intercropping on forage yield and quality. Journal of Agroecology, 8(2), 68-81. (In Persian with English abstract).
  14. Elyasi, S.S., Pirzad, A., Jalilian, J., Roohi, E., & Siosemardeh, A. (2024). Effects of tillage types on morpho-physiological characteristics and forage quality of vetch (Vicia pannonica) in rainfed condition. Journal of Agroecology, 16(1), 19-45. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/agry.2022.76580.1109
  15. Farrahi, A., Hoseini, M., Ahmadi, M., & Ghasemi Mobtaker, H. (2023). Investigating the different patterns of forage maize and sorghum intercropping at different tillage levels. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 55(1), 75-88. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2023.359147.655003
  16. Fateh, E., Tarighi, S., & Aynehband, A. (2018). The effect of different barley (Hordeum vulgare) and fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) intercropping planting ratio under nitrogen fertilizer on dry matter quality and quantity. Crop Production, 11(1), 23-35. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/ejcp.2018.12601.1982
  17. Ghasemi, A., Ghanbari, A., Fakheri, B.A., & Fanaie, H.R. (2018). Effect of different tillage management on maize forage and grain quality and quantity under the influence of different sources of organic and chemical fertilizers. Journal of Agroecology, 10(2), 490-503. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v10i2.59988
  18. Green, L.W., Pinchak, W.E. & Heitschmidt, P.K. (1987). Seasonal dynamics of minerals in forages at the Texas Experimental Ranch. Journal of Range Management, 40(6), 502-506. https://doi.org/10.2307/3898868
  19. Heydari, H., Dahmardeh, M., & Khammari, E. (2019). Evaluation of production in intercropped roselle with cowpea as replacement series. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 5(3), 157-167. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2018.230539.654299
  20. Heydarpour, N., Namdari, A., & Baghbani-Arani, A. (2018). Evaluation of quantitative yield and some physical properties of soil in three years mixed barley (Khorram)-vetch forage (Vicia sativa) cropping system under rain-fed conditions. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 28(4), 1-14. (In Persian with English abstract).
  21. Hodiyani, A., Dahmardeh, M., & Khammari, I. (2016). Evaluation of tillage systems on agronomical aspects in roselle-green gram intercropping using the replacement method. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 47(2), 265-276. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2016.58860
  22. Hu, W., Beare, M., Tregurtha, C., Gillespie, R., Lehto, K., Tregurtha, R., Gosden, P., Glasson, S., Dellow, S., & George, M. (2020). Effects of tillage, compaction and nitrogen inputs on crop production and nitrogen losses following simulated forage crop grazing. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 289, 106733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106733
  23. Idowu, O.J., Sultana, S., Darapuneni, M., Beck, L., & Steiner, R. (2019). Short-term conservation tillage effects on corn silage yield and soil quality in an irrigated, arid agroecosystem. Agronomy, 9(8), 455-470. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9080455
  24. Javanmard, A., Nikdel, H., & Amini Machiani, M. (2019). Evaluation of forage quantity and quality domestic population of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), vetch (Vicia sativa L.) and Caspian vetch (Vicia hyrcanica) under rain-fed condition. Journal of Science and Sustainable Production, 29(1), 15-31. (In Persian with English abstract).
  25. Kocer, A., & Albayrak, S. (2012). Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(1), 96-99.
  26. Lal, B., Rana, K.S., Rana, D.S., Shivay, Y.S., Sharma, Y.S., Meena, B.P. & Gautam, P. (2019). Biomass, yield, quality and moisture use of Brassica carinata as influenced by intercropping with chickpea under semiarid tropics. Journal of Saudi Agriculture Science, 18(1), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.01.001
  27. Lamei, H.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 in Iran. Seed and Plant Production, 29(2), 169-183. (In Persian with English abstract).
  28. Lanyasunya, T.P., Wang, H.R., Kariuki, S.T., Kuria, D.M., Chek, A.L., & Mukisira, E.A. (2007). Effect of maturity on the mineral content of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa). Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 7(1), 53-58.
  29. Li, Z., Liu, H., Yang, H., & Wang, T. (2023). Effects of deep vertical rotary tillage management methods on soil quality in saline cotton fields in southern Xinjiang. Agriculture, 13(10), 1864. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101864
  30. Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A., & Vlachostergios, D.O. (2011). Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5(4), 396-410.
  31. Lv, L., Gao, Z., Liao, K., Zhu, Q., & Zhu, J. (2023). Impact of conservation tillage on the distribution of soil nutrients with depth. Soil Tillage Research, 225, 105527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105527
  32. Mabudi Bilesuar, H., & Zehtab Salmasi, S. (2017). Evaluation of yield and advantages of corn (Zea mays) and sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 27(1), 1-11. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.24764310.1396.27.1.1.1
  33. Metwally, A.A., Safina, S.A., & Noaman, A.H. (2015). Yield and land equivalent ratio of intercropping maize with Egyptian cotton. Journal of Agri-Food and Applied Sciences, 3(4), 85-93.
  34. Najafabadi, A., Jalilian, J., & Zardoshti, M. (2017). The effect of intercropping patterns on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of safflower and bitter vetch in high-input and low-input farming systems. Journal of Crope Improvement, 19(2), 445-460. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2017.60427
  35. Nakhzari Moghaddam, A. (2017). The evaluation of quantitative and qualitative traits of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and pea (Pisum sativum) and land equivalent ratio under different planting patterns and nitrogen levels. Journal of Crop Production, 10(1), 39-54. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/ejcp.2017.7775.1576
  36. Nelson, D.W., & Sommers, L.E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T. & Sumner, M.E. (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3, SSSA Book Series, Madison. p. 961-1010.
  37. Ren, B., Li, X., Dong, S., Liu, P., Zhao, B., & Zhang, J. (2018). Soil physical properties and maize root growth under different tillage systems in the North China Plain. The Crop Journal, 6(6), 669-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2018.05.009
  38. Salah, B.Y., Salma, S.K., Sourour, A., Bilal, S., Jamila, I., & Hichen, B.S. (2019). Effect of different levels of nitrogen fertilization on forage yields and quality of hairy vetch-triticale mixtures. The Open Agriculture Journal, 13(9), 90-100. http://doi.org/10.2174/1874331501913010090
  39. Samuel, F.L., José, C., Daniel, P.B., Carlos, C.M., Jose, A. & Jorge, Á.F. (2020). Tillage and irrigation system effects on soil carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions in a maize monoculture under Mediterranean conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 196(1), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104488
  40. Shahbazi, S., Jalilian, J., Alizadeh, K., & Javanmard, A. (2022). Evaluation of chemical and organic-bio-fertilizer treatments on yield and forage quality of triticale and Maragheh Smooth vetch under sole and intercropping systems in rain-fed condition. Iranian Dryland Agronomy Journal, 10(2), 199-226. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/idaj.2022.356297.352
  41. Sharif Nejad, M., Ghanbari, A., & Sirousmehr, A.R. (2018). Evaluation of the ecophysiological aspects and forage quality indices in the intercropping of maize (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Journal of Agroecology, 10(1), 267-280. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v10i1.60479
  42. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., & Lewis, B.A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583-3596. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  43. Wang, Y., Han, X., Zhao, X., Zhang, Y., Qi, B., & Li, L. (2024). Grain yield and interspecific competition in an oat-common vetch intercropping system at varying sowing density. Frontiers in Plant Science, 15, 1344110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1344110
  44. Wasaya, A., Tahir, M., Ali, H., Hussain, M., Yasir, T.A., Sher, A., & Ijaz, M. (2017). Influence of varying tillage systems and nitrogen application on crop allometry, chlorophyll contents, biomass production and net returns of maize (Zea mays). Soil and Tillage Research, 170, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.02.006
  45. Xiao, J.X., Yin, X.H., Ren, J.B., Zhang, M., Tang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Complementation drives higher growth rate and yield of wheat and savesnitrogen fertilizer in wheat and faba bean intercropping. Field Crops Research, 221, 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.12.009
  46. Zeinvand Lorestani, E., Jahansouz, M., Oveisi, M., & Ahmadi, A. (2023). The effects of tillage systems, water stress and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and quality of forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 53(4), 203-218. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/IJFCS.2022.330330.654852

 

ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
نام را وارد کنید.
نشانی پست الکترونیکی را به درستی وارد کنید.
وابستگی سازمانی را به درستی وارد کنید.
توضیحات را وارد کنید (حداقل 50 حرف)
CAPTCHA Image
شناسه امنیتی را به درستی وارد کنید.

  • تاریخ دریافت 31 مرداد 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 09 دی 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 15 دی 1404
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 15 دی 1404