عملکرد علوفه و سودمندی کشت مخلوط تاخیری خلر(Lathyrus sativus L) و غلات یکساله در الگوهای مختلف کشت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزشی زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

2 گروه اکوفیزیولوژی دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز

3 گروه علوم دامی و صنایع غذایی، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

چکیده

 به منظور ارزیابی عملکرد علوفه و سودمندی در کشت مخلوط خلر با جو، یولاف و تریتیکاله، آزمایشی در سال های زراعی 1394و 1395 به صورت طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی با سه تکراردرایستگاه تحقیقاتی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تبریز اجرا شد. تیمارها شامل کشت خالص جو، یولاف و تریتیکاله در تراکم مطلوب و کشت مخلوط خلر با هریک از غلات (در مرحله ظهور برگ پرچم) در سه نسبت کشت خلر: غله  100:25، 100:50 و 80:50 بودند. نتایج نشان داد که بیشترین عملکرد کل علوفه به تیمارهای 80% یولاف- 50% خلر (8410 کیلوگرم در هکتار) و 80% جو- 50% خلر (8094 کیلوگرم در هکتار) و کمترین میزان آن به کشت خالص خلر (4758 کیلوگرم در هکتار) تعلق داشت. همچنین، بیشترین میزان پروتئین خام از تیمار کشت خالص خلر (152 گرم در کیلوگرم ماده خشک) و کمترین آن از تیمار کشت خالص تریتیکاله (77 گرم در کیلوگرم ماده خشک) حاصل شد. نسبت برابری زمین (LER) بر اساس میانگین دو سال به غیراز تیمار100% تریتیکاله- 50% خلر، در بقیه تیمارهای مخلوط بیشتر از یک بود که بیانگر سودمندی کشت مخلوط   می باشد. نتایج مربوط به مجموع ارزش نسبی (RVT) نشان داد بیشترین سودمندی اقتصادی از تیمارهای 80% یولاف- 50% خلر (40/1) و 80% جو- 50% خلر (34/1) بدست آمد. به طور کلی، نتایج حاصل از این پژوهش نشان داد که         می توان الگوهای 80% یولاف- 50% خلر و 80% جو- 50% خلررا به علت دارا بودن عملکرد علوفه خشک، عملکرد پروتئین خام و سودمندی اقتصادی بیشتر، به عنوان مناسترین الگوی کشت مخلوط پیشنهاد نمود.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Forage Yield and Relay Intercropping Advantage of Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) and Annual Cereals at Different Cropping Patterns

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hassan Dehghanian 1
  • Morteza Barmaki 1
  • Adel Dabbagh Mohammadi Nassab 2
  • Jamal Seifdavati 3
چکیده [English]

In order to evaluate the forage yield, crude protein and advantage indices of grass pea-cereal intercropping systems, a field study (2015-2016 and 2016-2017) was conducted as randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 13treatments and three replications at the research station of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran. The treatments were sole planting of grass pea, barley, oat and triticale and intercropping grass pea with each of the above cereals (in the flag leaf appearance stage), in three seeding ratios (grass pea: cereal; 25:100, 50:100 and 50:80). The results showed that the highest and lowest forage yield were obtained in 80% grass pea-100% oat (8410 kg.ha-1), 80% grass pea-100% barley (8094 kg.ha-1 and grass pea sole crop (4758 kg.ha-1), respectively. Also, the highest and lowest crude protein was recorded in grass pea (152 g. kg.DM-1) and triticale (77 g. kg.DM-1) monocrops, respectively. The land equivalent ratio (LER) value was greater than one in most of intercropped treatments with the exception of grass pea- triticale (50:100), which indicates advantage of mixtures compared with monocrops. Economic advantage in terms of relative value total (RVT) was greatest in the cases of grass pea mixtures with oat and barley (1.34 and 1.24, respectively) at the 50:80 seeding ratio. Generally, the results of this research showed that the grass pea intercropped with oat and barley at the 50:80 seeding ratio can be selected as the best legume-cereal intercropping systems due to higher forage yield, crude protein and economic benefit.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Economical Advantage
  • Forage Yield
  • Legume
  • LER
  • Protein

مراجع

Ahmadvand G and Hajinia S, 2016. Ecological aspects of replacement intercropping patterns of soybean (Glycine max L.) and millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Journal of Agroecology, 4: 485-498.
   Ahmadi A, Dabbagh Mohammadi Nassab A, Zehtab-Salmasi S and Amini R. 2010. Evaluation of yield and advantage indices in barley and vetch intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 20: 77-87. (In Persian).
Anil JP, Phipps RH and Miller FA, 1998. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: Review of potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Science, 53: 301-317.
Ahmadi A, Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab A, Zehtab Salmasi S, Amini R and Janmohammadi H, 2011. Evaluation of yield and advantage indices in barley and vetch intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4: 77-87.
Amani Machiani M, Javanmard A, Morshedloo MR and Maggi F, 2018. Evaluation of yield, essential oil content and compositions of peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) intercropped with faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Cleaner Production, 171: 529-537.
Ayneh band A, 2007. Ecology of Agricultural Systems. Publication of Shahid Chmaran University. (In Persian).
Banik P, Midya A, Sarkar BK and Ghose SS, 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy, 24: 325- 332.
Bremner JM and Breitenbeck GA, 1983. A simple method for determination of ammonium in semi micro Kjeldahl analysis of soils and plant materials using a block digester. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 14: 905-913.
Caballero R, Goicoechea EL and Hernaiz PJ, 1995. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of common vetch. Field Crops Research, 41: 135–140.
Dhima KV, Lithourgidis, AA, Vasilakoglou IB and Dordas CA, 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercropping in two seeding ratio. Field Crop Research, 100: 249-256.
Fujita K, Ofosu KG and Ogata S, 1992. Biological nitrogen fixation in mixed legume – cereal cropping system. Plant and Soil, 144: 155-175.
Javanshir A, Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab A, Hamidi A and Gholipour, M. 2000. Intercropping Ecology (Translated). Jehade Daneshgahi, University of Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian).

Javanmard A, Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab A, Nasiri Y and Shekari F, 2015. Evaluation of forage yield and some advantage indices in maize-legume intercropping as double cropping. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 12: 39-81. (In Persian).

Javanshir A, Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab A, Hamidi A and Gholipour, M, 2000. Intercropping Ecology (Translated). Publication of Jehade Daneshgahi, University of Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian).
Jahangiri H, Tohidi Nejad E, Torabi M and Pourandokht G, 2014. Evaluation of forage yield and some silage quality characteristics in oat (Avena sativa L.) and common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) intercropping. Journal of Crops Improvement, 2: 373-384. (In Persian).
Kassam A, Brammer H, 2013. Combining sustainable agricultural production with economic and environmental benefits. The Geographical Journal. 179, 11-18.
Koocheki A, Nassiri Mahallati M, Moradi RA and Alizadeh Y, 2015. Effect of different levels of nitrogen on yield and nitrogen use efficiency in maize-cotton intercropping system. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 1: 1-13. (In Persian).
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).
Lamei Harvani J, 2012. Technical and economical evaluation of mixed cropping grass pea with barley and triticale under dryland conditions in Zanjan province. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 2 (4): 93-102. (In Persian).
Lamei Harvani J and Alizadeh KH, 2014. The selection of most suitable combination in mixed cropping of hairy vetch with barley or triticale under Zanjan rainfied condition. Journal of Iranian Agricultural Sciences, 1: 17-39. (In Persian).
Lawes DA and Jones DIH, 1971. Yield, nutritive value and ensiling characteristics of whole-crop spring cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science 76:497-485.
Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dhima KV, Dordas CA and Yiakoulaki MD, 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research, 99: 106–113.
Lithourgidis AS, Vlachostergios DN, Dordas CA and Damalas CA, 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea-cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 34: 287-294.
Mazaheri D, 1998. Intercropping. Publication of University of Tehran. (In Persian).
Mead R, Willey RW, 1980. The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Experimental Agriculture, 16: 217–228.
Mojtaba Zamani M, and Norouzi SH, 2017. Evaluation of different intercropping patterns of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) through competitive and economic Indices. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 7: 145-158.
Ofori F and Stern WR, 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy, 41: 41–90.
Osman AE and Nersoyan N, 1986. Effect of the proportion of species on the yield and quality of forage mixtures, and on the yield of barley in the following year. Experimental Agriculture, 22: 345-351.
Roozbahani A, 2013. Evaluation of quantity and quality of forage in intercropping of vetch (Vicia panonica L.) and Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) with annual grasses under rain fed conditions of Markazi Province in Iran. Seed and Plant Production, 1: 81-95. (In Persian).
Sadeghpour A, Jahanzad E, Esmaieli A, Hosseini MB 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.
Strydhorst SM, King JR, Lopetinksy KJ and Harker KN, 2008. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agronomy Journal, 100: 182–190.
Shobeirri, SSD, Habibi A, Kashani F, Pak Nejad H, Jafari and  Lamei J, 2010. Study of dry forage yield and quality of hairy vetch and triticale in pure stand and mixed cropping. Journal of Iranian Agronomical Sciences, 2, 269-281.
Shobeiri SS, Habibi D, Kashani A, Paknejad F, and Jafari H, 2015. Study of physiological traits of grass pea with barely in pure and mixed cropping under dry land and irrigated conditions. Agronomy Journal (Pajouhesh & Sazandegi), 107: 91-98.
Thompson DJ, Stout, DG and Moore T, (1992). Forage production by for annual cropping sequences emphasizing barley irrigation in southern interior British Colombia, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 72: 181-185.
Vandermeer J, 1990.Intercropping. In Agro-ecology, McGraw – Hill publishing Co., pp: 481 - 516.
Watiki JM, Fukai S, Band JA and Keating BA, 1993. Radiation interception and growth of maize – cowpea intercrop as affected by maize plant – density and cowpea cultivar. Field Crops Research, 35: 123-133.
Willey RW, 1990. Resources use in intercropping systems. Agricultural Water Management, 17: 215-231.
Willey RW and Osiro DS, 1972. Studies on mixtures of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular references to plant population. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 79: 519-529
Yolcu H, Polat M, Aksakal V, 2009. Morphologic, yield and quality parameters of same annual forages as sole crops and intercropping mixtures in dry conditions for livestock. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 7: 594-599.
دانش کشاورزی وتولید پایدار
دوره 30، شماره 1
فروردین 1399
صفحه 41-56

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار