مدیریت زراعی علف‏های‌هرز و بررسی شاخص های ارزیابی کشت مخلوط گلرنگ (.L Carthamus tinctorius) و کلزا (Brassica napus L.)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهی، گرایش اکولوژی گیاهان زراعی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.

2 استاد گروه مهندسی تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، گرایش فیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی، دانشگاه علوم پایه مراغه، مراغه، ایران.

3 دانشیار گروه مهندسی تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، اکولوژی گیاهان زراعی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه مراغه، مراغه، ایران.

4 دانشجوی دکتری فیزیولوژی تولید و پس از برداشت گیاهان باغبانی، گروه علوم و مهندسی باغبانی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ‏ایران.‏

5 کارشناسی ارشد فیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی، گروه اکوفیزولوژی گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.

6 دانشجوی دکتری فیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی، گروه اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف: هدف از این پژوهش، بررسی پتانسیل کنترل علف­های­هرز و بررسی شاخص ارزیابی کشت مخلوط گلرنگ و کلزا بود.
 
مواد و روش­ها: آزمایش به­­صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار اجرا گردید. فاکتور اول شامل علف‏های­هرز (با کنترل و بدون کنترل علف‏های­هرز) و فاکتور دوم الگو‌های مختلف کشت مخلوط در چهار سطح شامل کشت مخلوط جایگزینی گلرنگ و کلزا با نسبت‌های 1:1 و 2:1 و کشت مخلوط افزایشی گلرنگ و کلزا با نسبت­های 100:50، 100:75 و کشت خالص گلرنگ و کلزا درنظرگرفته شد.
 
یافته­ها: در این پژوهش مشاهده گردید که در میان تیمار‌های کشت مخلوط، کشت مخلوط افزایشی 100:75 از نظر کنترل علف‌های­هرز موفقتر بوده است. در بین کلیه تیمار‌های کشت مخلوط بیشترین میزان شاخص ارزیابی کشت مخلوط به تیمار کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 1:1 با کنترل کامل علف­های­‌هرز با مقدار 71/1 تعلق داشت. بیشترین ارزش نسبی به تیمار کشت مخلوط جایگزینی 1:1 با کنترل کامل علف­های­‌هرز (33/2) تعلق داشت. باتوجه ­به نتایج، از بین الگوهای مختلف کاشت، بیشترین عملکرد دانه در کشت خالص و کنترل کامل علف­های­‌هرز به­دست آمد، به­طوری ­که با سایر الگوهای کاشت مخلوط جایگزینی 1:1 (گلرنگ-کلزا) اختلاف معنی­داری نشان نداد.
 
نتیجه­گیری: ارزیابی تیمار‌های کشت مخلوط با استفاده از شاخص نسبت برابری زمین، مجموع ارزش نسبی و کارایی کنترل علف­های­‌هرز نشان داد که الگوهای کشت مخلوط ازنقطه ‌نظر تولید و ارزش اقتصادی بر کشت خالص برتری دارند. همچنین عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد در گلرنگ تحت تأثیر کشت خالص گلرنگ و تیمار کنترل علف­های­‌هرز قرار گرفتند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Cultural Management of weeds and evaluation indices of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) and Canola (Brassica napus L.) intercropping

نویسندگان [English]

  • jalil Shafagh 1
  • Fariborz Shekari 2
  • Abdullah Jawanmard 3
  • Mina amani 4
  • Zohreh Saeli-Ashan 5
  • mahnaz sharifi 6
1
2 Professor of the Department of Plant Genetics and Production Engineering, Crop Physiology Department, Maragheh University of Basic Sciences, Maragheh, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Production Engineering and Plant Genetics, Crop Ecology, Faculty of Agriculture, Maragheh University, Maragheh, Iran.
4
5 Master of Physiology of Crop Plants, Department of Plant Ecophysiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
6 Ph.D. student of Crop Physiology, Department of Plant Ecophysiology, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background & Objective: The objective of this research was to investigate the potential of weed control and to evaluate the index of intercropping safflower and canola.
 Materials & Methods: The experiment was conducted as a factorial design within a randomized complete block design, comprising three replications. The first factor involved weed control at two levels: complete weed control and without weed control. The second factor consisted of different patterns of mixed cropping at four levels, including: mixed cropping of safflower and canola with replacement ratios of 1:1 and 2:1, as well as mixed cultivation of safflower and canola with ratios of 100:50 and 100:75. Additionally, pure cultivation of both safflower and canola was included in the study.
 
Results: In this research, it was observed that among the mixed cropping treatments, the 75:100 mixed cropping ratio was the most effective in terms of weed control. Among all the mixed cropping treatments, the highest mixed cropping evaluation index was recorded for the 1:1 replacement mixed cropping treatment with complete weed control, yielding a value of 1.71. Additionally, the highest relative value was associated with the 1:1 replacement mixed cropping treatment under complete weed control, which was 2.33. According to the results, among the various planting patterns, the highest seed yield was achieved with pure cultivation and complete weed control, showing no significant difference compared to the 1:1 replacement mixture (safflower-canola).
 
Conclusion: The evaluation of mixed cropping treatments using the land equivalent ratio (LER), relative yield total (RVT), and weed control efficiency indicated that mixed cropping patterns are superior to pure cultivation in terms of both production and economic value. Furthermore, the yield and yield components of safflower were significantly influenced by pure safflower cultivation and the weed control treatment.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dry weight of weeds
  • Economic value
  • Land equivalent ratio index
  • Pure cultivation
  • Relative value total

مراجع

Abbasi R and Namdari M. 2022. Study of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merrill) and chia (Salvia hispanica L.) competition in the different intercropping ratios based on replacement method. Plant Production, 45(1): 1-14. (In Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2022.37720.1986
Agegnehu G, Ghizaw 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.05.002
Alizadeh Y, Koucheki A, and Nasiri Mahallati M. 2009. Effect yield, and potential yield components and weed control two plant in intercropping bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) seed basil (Ocimum basilicum). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 7: 533-541. (In Persian with English Abstract).  https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20081472.1388.7.2.21.1
Asadi GA, and Khorramdel1 S. 2013. Effects of different ratio of barley and hairy vetch intercropping on yield, plant nitrogen content, weed population and diversity. Crop Production, 7: 131-156. (In Persian with English abstract)
Asadi-Sanam S, Zavareh M, Pirdashti H, Sefidkon F and Nematzadeh GA. 2019. Evaluation of phytochemical properties of purple coneflower [Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench] flowers in intercropping with green beans and different summer time planting dates. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science, 50: 61-76.
Azizi G. 2009. Evaluation of nutrient resource and crop diversity interaction on agrobiodiversity in different mixed cropping systems. PhD Thesis, faculty of Agriculture Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian with English Abstract).
Banik P, Midya A, Sarkar BK and Ghose SS. 2006. Wheat and chick ped intercropping systems in additive series experiment: advantages and smothering. European Journal Agronomy, 24: 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.10.010
Deveikyte I, Kadziuliene Z and Sarunait L. 2009. Weed suppression ability of spring cereal crops and peas in pure and mixed stands. Agronomy Research, 7: 239-244.
Gomez P and Gurevitch J. 2005. Weed community responses in a corn- soybeen intercrop. Opulus Press, 1: 281-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1478958
Hamzei J and Seyedi M. 2017. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Yield performance under additive intercropping with Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and different tillage systems. Journal of Agroecology, 10(2): 416-429. (In Persian with English Abstract).  https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v10i2.54047
Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Andersen MARK, Bjornsgaard B and Jensen ES. 2006. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea-barley intercrops. Field Crops Research, 95: 256-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.03.003
Hemayati S, Siadat A and Sadeghzadeh F. 2002. Evaluation of intercropping of two corn hybrids in different densities. Iranian Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 25: 73-87. (In Persian with English Abstract).  https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2015.56805
Javanshir A, Dabagh Mohammadi Nasab A, Hamidi A and Qolipour M. 2000. Ecology of mixed cropping (translation). Jihad University Press, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (In Persian with English Abstract).
Khan MA, witzk-Eberechts Maass BL and Beeker HC. 2003. Evaluation of a world wide collection of safflowers for morphological diversity and Fatty acid composition. Technological and Institutional in novations for sustainnable. rural development. Deutscher tropentage, Gottingen.
Liebman M and Dyck E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Journal of applied Ecology, 3: 92-122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795
Makinde EA, Ayoola OT and Makinde EA. 2009. Intercropping leafy greens and maize onweed infestation, crop development, and yield. International Journal Vegetable Science, 15: 402-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315260903047371
Mao L, Zhang, L, Li W, Werf WVD, Sun J, Spiertz H and Li L. 2012. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research, 138: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.019
Mirshekari B. 2010. Yield and harvest index of sunflower (Helianthus annus) grown by a monocultur
system in competition with redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Agro ecology Journal, 6(8), 73-88. (In Persian with English abstract)
Mohammaddoust Chamanabad HR and Bakhshi M. 2016. Study of effective morpho-physiological characteristics on wheat competitive ability against weeds. Journal of Agriculture Science and Sustainable Production 26(1): 57-66. (In Persian with English Abstract).
Mohammadi H. 2002. The effect of plant density on physiological characteristics, yield and yield components of chickpea cultivars (cicer arietinum L.). M.S.c Thesis, University of Tehran, Karaj – Iran.
Nikdel H, Shafagh J, Nasrollahzadeh S, Raee Y, and Kanouni H. 2023. Evaluation of performance and ecological indicators of intercropping of chickpeas with urban chickpeas in the dry conditions of Saqez city. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 33(3): 303-321. https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2023.56348.3033
Pouramir F, Koocheki A, Nasiri Mahallati M, and Ghorbani R. 2010. Evaluating yield and yield components of sesame and pea intercropping replacement series. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(5): 747-757. (In Persian with English Abstract).  https://doi.org/10.22067/ijpr.v1394i2.30942
Rabiee M and Farahdahr F. 2020. Evaluation of yield and advantages of Forage legumes with cereals intercropping as second crop in paddy fields. Plant Production, 43(3): 363-374. (In Persian with English Abstract).  https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2019.27838.1689
Rezvani Moghadam P, and Moradi RA. 2011. Effects planting date, biological fertilizer and intercropping on yield and essential oil content of cumin and fenugreek. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 43: 217-230. (In Persian with English Abstract).  https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2012.28484
Shafagh-Kolvanagh J, Mokhtariyan R, Amani and Nasrollahzade S. 2023. Effect of weed control methods on seed yield and yield components of dragon’s head (Lallemantia iberica F. & C.M.). Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 25(1): 88-100. (In Pe   rsian with English Abstract).  
Samarajeewa KBDP, Takatsugu H and Shinyo O. 2006. Finger millet (Eleucine crocanal L. Gearth) as a cover crop on weed control, growth and yield of soybean under different tillage systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 90: 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.08.018
Tuna C, and Orak A, 2007. The role of intercropping on yield potential of common vetch (Viciasativa L.) /Oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivated in pure stand and mixtures. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 2: 14-19.
دانش کشاورزی وتولید پایدار
دوره 35، شماره 1
اردیبهشت 1404
صفحه 167-181

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار