بررسی عملکرد جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) و باقلا (Vicia faba L.) در تراکم و ترکیب های مختلف کشت مخلوط از طریق شاخص های رقابتی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• فهیمه اسلامی خلیلی
• همت اله پیردشتی
• آلاله متقیان

گروه زراعت، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری

10.22067/jag.v3i1.9974

چکیده

به منظور بررسی کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) و باقلا (Vicia faba L.) آزمایشی به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک-های کامل تصادفی با دو عامل و سه تکرار در دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع ساری در سال زراعی 87-1386 انجام گرفت. فاکتور اول شامل دو نسبت بذر (D1 (نسبت مطلوب بذر): به ترتیب 75 و 150 کیلوگرم باقلا و جو در هکتار و D2 (نسبت زیاد بذر): به ترتیب 100 و 200 کیلوگرم باقلا و جو در هکتار) و فاکتور دوم شامل نسبت های مختلف کاشت (:P1 تک کشتی باقلا، :P2 50% باقلا+ 50% جو، P3: 75% باقلا+ 25% جو، P4: 25% باقلا+ 75% جو و P5: تک کشتی جو) بود. با محاسبه نسبت برابری زمین (LER) مشخص شد که ترکیب 75 % باقلا+ 25% جو در تراکم بالا و ترکیب 25% باقلا+ 75% جو با تراکم مطلوب از حداکثر کارایی استفاده از زمین برخوردار بودند. با توجه به معنی دار بودن اثر متقابل تراکم در نسبت کشت بر عملکرد و برخی شاخص های رقابتی دو گونه، بیشترین عملکرد جو و باقلا (به ترتیب 66/3306 و 56/4884 کیلوگرم در هکتار) در تک کشتی با تراکم بالا مشاهده شد. در این آزمایش ترکیب 75% باقلا+ 25% جو در تراکم بالا موجب بیشترین عملکرد مخلوط، ضریب غالبیت و 27% افزایش عملکرد جو در مخلوط نسبت به تک کشتی آن گردید. همچنین حداکثر ضریب غالبیت و 17% افزایش عملکرد باقلا در مخلوط نسبت به کشت خالص آن از ترکیب 25% باقلا+ 75% جو با تراکم مطلوب بدست آمد. به علاوه تیمار 75 % باقلا+ 25% جو در نسبت مطلوب بذر از حداکثر شاخص تولید سیستم برخوردار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• افت واقعی عملکرد
• ضریب غالبیت
• نسبت برابری زمین

---

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) yield in different density and mixture intercropping via competition indices

نویسندگان [English]

• F Eslami Khalili
• Hemmatollah Pirdashti
• A Motaghian

Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Iran.

چکیده [English]

In order to study the intercropping of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) an experiment was conducted as factorial based on randomized complete block design with two factors and three replications at Sari Agricultural Science and Natural Resources University during 2009. The first factor was two seed ratios include D1: 75 and 150 kg.ha-1 of faba bean and barley, respectively (optimum seed ratio) and D2: 100 and 200 kg.ha-1 of faba bean and barley, respectively (high seed ratio) and the second factor consisted of different planting ratio, P1: sole cropping of faba bean, P2: 50% faba bean + 50 % barley, P3: 75% faba bean + 25% barley, P4: 25% faba bean + 75% barley, P5: sole cropping of barley. Land equivalent ratio (LER) indicated that intercropping of 25% faba bean + 75% barley was better than 50% faba bean + 50% barley. According to significant interaction effects of density and intercropping ratio in terms of seed yield and some competitive indices for both crop species, the highest barley and faba bean yield (3306.66 and 4884.56 kg.ha-1, respectively) were observed in sole cropping with high density. In this experiment, the 75 % faba bean + 25 % mixture with high density was recorded highest intercropping yield, barley aggressivity value and 27% yield increases of barley in mix-proportion compared to sole crops. Also, the most of faba bean aggressivity value and faba bean yield increases in mix-proportion compared to sole crop were obtained when 25% faba bean + 75% barley mixture with optimum density was used. Furthermore the 75% faba bean + 25% barley treatment plus optimum seed ratio had highest system productivity index.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Actual yield loss
• Aggresivity value
• Land equivalent ratio

مراجع

1- Agegnehu, G., Ghizam A., and Sinebo, W. 2006. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 202-207.

2- Avis, T. J., Grave, V., Antoun, H., and Tweddell. R.J. 2008. Multifaceted beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant health and productivity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40: 1733-1740.

3- Banik, P. 1996. Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crops Science 176: 289-294.

4- Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K., and Bagchi, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassica compestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row- replacement series systems. Journal of Agronomy and Crops Science 185: 9-14.

5- 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 smoothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325-332.

6- Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichmann, D., and Knox, M. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96: 1730–1738.

7- Corre-Hellou, G., and Crozat, Y. 2004. Interspecific competition for soil N in pea–barley mixtures during the vegetative phase and consequences of N2 fixation. In: AEP, Editor, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Grain Legumes, Dijon, pp. 65–66.

8- Dapaah, H.K., Asafu-Agyei, J.N., Ennin, S.A., and Yamoah, C.Y. 2003. Yield stability of cassava, maize, soybean and cowpea intercrops. Journal of. Agriculture Science 140: 73–82.

9- De Wit, C.T., and Vanden Bergh, J.P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 13: 212–221.

10- Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercropping in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.

11- Geren, H., Avcioglu, R. Soya, H., and Kir, B. 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology 7 (22): 4100-4104.

12- Ghosh, P.K., Mohanty, M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Painuli, D.K., and Misra A.K. 2006. Growth, competition, yields advantage and economics in soybean/pigeon pea intercropping system in semi-arid tropics of India II. Effect of nutrient management. Field Crops Research 96: 90–97.

13- Gillani, S.S., and Bahmanyar, M.A., 2008. Impact of organic amendments with and without mineral fertilizers on soil microbial respiration. Journal of Applied Sciences 8(4): 642-647. (In Persian with English Summary)

14- Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Andersen, M.K., Jqrnsgaard, B., and Jensen, E.S. 2006. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crops Research 95: 256–267.

15- Haymes, R., and Lee, H.C. 1999. Competition between autumn and spring planted grain intercrops of wheat (Triricum aestivum) and field bean (Vicia faba). Field Crops Research 62: 167-176.

16- Hosseini, S.M.B., Mazaheri, D., Jahansouz, M.R., and Yazdi Samadi, B. 2003. The effect of nitrogen levels on yield and components of forage millet (Pennisetum americanum) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in intercropping system. Journal of Pajouhesh va Sazandegi 59: 60-67. (In Persian with English Summary)

17- Jahani, M., Koocheki, A., and Nasiri Mahallati, M., 2008. Comparison of different intercropping arrangements of cumin (Cuminum Cyminum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Iranian Journal of Crop Research 6(1): 67-78. (In Persian with English Summary)

18- Kopke, U., and Nemecek, T. 2010. Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crops Research 115: 217–233.

19- Launay, M., Brisson, N., Satger, S., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Corre-Hellou, G., Asynova, E.K., Ruske, R., Jensen E. S., and Gooding, M. J. 2009. Exploring options for managing strategies for pea–barley intercropping using a modeling approach. European Journal of Agronomy 31(2): 85-98.

20- Li, L., Yang, S., Li, X., Zhang, F., and Christie, F. 1999. Inter specific complementary and competitive interactions between intercropped maize and faba. Plant and Soil 212: 105-114.

21- Malakooti, M. 1996. Sustainable Agriculture and Increasing Yield with Optimization of Fertilizer Application in Iran. Agricultural Education Press. 379 pp. (In Persian)

22- Mazaheri, D., Pasarive, S., Peyghambari, A. 2002. Study and investigation growth analysis in monoculture and multicultural of soybean cultures. Journal of Pajouhesh va Sazandegi 54: 37-54. (In Persian with English Summary)

23- Mushagalusa, G.N., Ledent, J.F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: Effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64: 180–188.

24- Neumann, A., Werner, J., and Rauber, R. 2009. Evaluation of yield–density relationships and optimization of intercrop compositions of field-grown pea–oat intercrops using the replacement series and the response surface design. Field Crops Research 114: 286–294.

25- Odo, P.E. 1991. Evaluation of short and tall sorghum varieties in mixtures with cowpea in the Sudan savanna of Nigeria: land equivalent ratio, grain yield and system productivity index. Experimental Agriculture 27: 435–441.

26- SAS Institute. 1997. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary. NC, USA.

27- Schmidtke, K., Neumann, A., Hof, C., and Rauber, R. 2004. Soil and atmospheric nitrogen uptake by lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. Nudum L.) as monocrops and intercrops. Field Crops Research 87:245-256.

28- Taghizade, M.S., and Koocheki, A. 2005. Effect of different seed ratio and plant density in intercropping soybean cultures. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Industries 2(1): 33-44. (In Persian with English Summary)

29- Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. 2005. A simulation model of cereal-legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions. II. Model application. Field Crops Research 93: 23-33.

30- Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping its importance and research needs. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 1-10.

31- Xu, B., Shan, L., Zhang, S., Deng, X., and Li, F. 2008. Evaluation of switch grass and sainfoin intercropping under 2:1 row-replacement in semiarid region, northwest China. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(22): 4056-4067.

32- Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Forestry 32: 111-119.