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.)

Document Type : Scientific - Research

Authors

• abdolreza ahmadi
• A darayi mofrad

Lorestan University of Khorramabad

10.22067/jag.v8i3.38687

Abstract

Introduction
In agronomy, natural outlook has been expressed in different forms which stable agriculture is an example. Stable agriculture is ascribed to the authentic management of agricultural resources, which in addition to fulfilling the ever-changing needs of humans, maintains the health of environment and capacity of water and soil resources. Application of herbicides, besides being costly, resulted in the selection of herbicide resistant weed species and has become an environmental contamination factor. However, reduction of herbicide consumption is one of the goals of modern agriculture, with several methods being suggested, including intercropping. In natural conditions of production, environment conservation of weed existence requires cost. One of the important preparations in weed control from the perspective of sustainable agriculture, is using intercropping system. The aim of this study was to determine the role of crop diversity on weed and crop production based on the beneficial effects of intercropping system than pure.
Materials and methods
In order to study effects of mixed and sole cropping of barley with common vetch on their biologic yield and utilization indices, an experiment was conducted in Agricultural college of the University of Lorestan, during the growing season of 2013-2014 with 24 treatments using the method of rows replacement series technique by the randomized complete block design in a factorial arrangement with three replications. First factor included 6 levels of intercropping: sole cropping of common vetch (100%), 55-45 (Common vetch-barley), 35-65, 45-55, 65-35 and sole cropping of barley and second factor included 4 levels of weed wild safflower, control, 10, 15 and 20 plants per m2. In this experiment WCE, LER and CR were measured. The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Mstat-C computer software. Mean comparisons were performed using Duncan’s multiple range test at two levels of significant 1% and 5%.
Results and discussion
There was significant difference between minimum and maximum dry weight of weeds, the results showed that barley have important role in weed control wild safflower. Therefore, weed control efficiency in 15 plant in m2 was higher than two 10 and 20 plant in m2. The lowest WCE (161.27%) was found at 15-35-65 treatment, but, the highest WCE (51.99) was obtained from 15-65-35 (Wild safflower-common vetch-barley) treatment. Computes showed that WCE, in 15 plants of wild safflower/m2, was more than 10 and 20 p/m2. The reduction in weed population and biomass in intercropping systems with barley may be attributed to shading effect and competition stress created by the canopy.
Thus, result showed that reduction rate of common vetch in intercropping, with bearing compatibility power to weeds reduced LER. CR for common vetch intercropping component in comparison with barley in total treatments was>1. The highest CR, for vetch obtained from treatment 45-55-control (2.64) and for barley from seed ratio 65-35-control (1.83).
Conclusion
The results in this study showed various seed rate had noticeable effect on forage yield, LER and weed control. In this experiment changing seed rate in two tested plants (barly- commen vetch) changed the number and weed species, as a result noticeable changing was created in their competitive power. Result showed that seed rate (35% barley-65% common vetch) was better than other treatment, not only in use efficiency of environment, but also it had more dry forage yield. Also, former seed rate had effective role in decreasing the weed biomass. This important result was related to reduced light penetrate at the bottom of cover crop and probably lack of competition in access to environmental resources was also affected. So using this seed density for mentioned area is recommended for reducing weed competition and improving the quality and quantity of dry forage.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the teachers of College of Agriculture of Lorestan University, for their critical review of the manuscript.

Keywords

• Competition relative
• Control efficiency
• Forage yield
• Land equivalent ratio

---

References

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

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: 325-332.

Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K., and Bagchi, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var. Toria) and legume in 1:1 and 2:1 replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185: 9-14.

Baumann, D.T., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2002. Effect of intercropping and reproductive capacity of late-emerging Cenecio vulgaris L., with special refrence to competition for light. Annal of Botany 87: 209-217.

Blackshaw, R.E., and Harker, K.N. 1998. Erodium cicutarium density and duration of interference effects on yield of wheat. Weed Research 38: 55-62.

Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seedbank in three ohisoils. Weed Science 39: 186-194.

Carr, P.M., Horsley, R.D., and Poland, W.W. 2004. Barley, oat and cereal-pea mixtures as dryland in the northern great plains. Agronomy 96: 677-684.

Daraeimofrad, A.R., Ahmadifard, M., and Azizi, K. 2013. Intercropping and biological control of weeds (Book). Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Germany 63 pp.

Dhima, K.V., Lithorgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2006. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Elsevier Science. Field Crop Research 100: 249-256.

Gaungwei, D., Xiaobing, L., Stephan, H., Jeffrey, N., Dual, A., and Baoshan, X. 2006. The effect of cover crop management on soil organic matter. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com 130: 229-239.

Geren, H., Avcioglu, R., Soya, H., and Kir, B. 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: Biomass yield and silage quality. Biotechnology 22: 4100-4104.

Gomez, P., and Gurevitch, J. 2005. Weed community responses in a corn-soybean intercrop. Opulus Press 1: 281-288.

Hamzei, J., and Seyedi, M. 2013. Effect of intercropped barley on weed suppression in chickpea-barley intercropping systems. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production 4(5): 884-891.

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., Andferson, M.K., Jqrnsgaard, B., and Jensen, E.S. 2005. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea-barley intercrops. Field Crop Research 95: 256-267.

Jeyabal, A., and Kuppuswamy, G. 2001. Recycling of organic wastes for the production of vermicompost and its response in rice–legume cropping system and soil fertility. European Journal of Agronomy 15: 153-170.

Koocheki, A., Fallahpour, F., Khorramdel, S., and Jafari, L. 2014. Intercropping wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with canola (Brassica napus L.) and their effects on yield, yield components, weed density and diversity. Journal of Aroecology 6(1): 11-20. (In Persian with English Summary)

Mazaheri, D., Bankesaz, A., Movahedi, D., and Hoseinzadeh, A. 2001. Effect of intercropping maize and bean on weeed control. Pajusazan Journal 13: 47-51.

Midya, A., Bhattacharjee, K., Ghose, S.S., and Banik, P. 2005. Deferred seeding of blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) field on yield advantages and smothering of weeds. Journal Agronomy Crop Science 191: 195-201.

Morris, R.A., and Garrity, D.P. 1993. Resource capture and utilization in intercropping: water. Field Crops Research 34: 303-317.

Reijntjes, C., and Haverkortand, W.B. 1992. Farming for the future, an introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. Macmillan Education Ltd.

Sadrabadi-Haghighi, R. 1998. Evaluation of supplemental irrigation and intercropping of wheat with hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) in low input dry land system. PhD thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)

Silva, P.S.L., Oliveira, O.F., Silva, P.I.B., Silva, K.M.B., and Braga, J.D. 2009. Effect of cowpea intercropping on weed control and corn yield. Planta Daninha 27: 491-497.

Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. 2004. Asimulation model of cereal-legum intercropping systems for semi-arid regions. ІІ. Model application. Field Crops Research 93: 23-33.

Zarea, M.J., Ghalavand, A., Mohamadi Goltapeh, E., and Rejali, F. 2010. Effect of clovers intercropping and earthworm activity on weed growth. Journal of Plant Protection Research 50(4): 463-469.

Zaviehmavadat, L., Mazaheri, D., Majnon Hoseinii, N., and Rezaei, M. 2013. The effect of maize and cowpea intercropping on weed control condition. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production 4(11): 2885-2889.