بررسی اثرات متقابل رقابتی کلزا (Brassica napus) در برابر خردل وحشی (arvensis Sinapis) با استفاده از روش سری جایگزینی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد شوشتر

چکیده

آزمایشی گلخانه‏ای به منظور بررسی اثر رقابتی تراکم های مختلف خردل وحشی در مقابل کلزا در سال 1393-1394 در دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شوشتر انجام شد. آزمایش در قالب طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی با چهار تکرار با استفاده از سری‏های جایگزینی که در آن خردل وحشی و کلزا به ترتیب در نسبت های مختلف از 8:0، 6:2، 4:4، 2:6 و 0:8 با مجموع 8 بوته در هر گلدان کاشته شدند، انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که حداکثر وزن خشک، ارتفاع، تعداد شاخه، تعداد غلاف در بوته و تعداد دانه در غلاف و عملکرد در کلزا در کشت خالص آن به دست آمد. حضور 25 و 75 درصدی خردل وحشی در ترکیب کشت، عملکرد کلزا را به ترتیب تا 50 و 96 درصد کاهش داد. ارزیابی کلی از عملکرد نسبی نشان داد که هر دو گونه به روش مشابهی از منابع بهره برداری نموده و از این رو دارای اثرات آنتاگونیستی متقابل هستند. ضریب رقابت نسبی کلزا در برابر خردل وحشی تنها در نسبت 2:6 بیشتر از دیگر نسبت‏های گیاهی بود. از طرفی شاخص رقابت نشان داد که خردل از توانایی رقابتی بالاتری نسبت به کلزا برخوردار بوده و مدیریت این علف هرز در مراحل ابتدایی رشد کلزا برای حصول عملکرد مطلوب امری اجتناب ناپذیر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Competitive Interaction of Canola (Brassica napus) against Wild Mustard (Sinapis arvensis) using Replacement Series Method

نویسندگان [English]

  • saeid aslani
  • saeed saeedipour
Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Increasing costs of herbicide inputs in intensive crop production systems and the incidence of herbicide resistance in weeds have renewed interest in exploiting crop competitiveness to reduced herbicide use. Two factors contribute to crop competitiveness against weeds: ability to withstand competition (AWC), or the ability to maintain high yields in the presence of weeds, and weed suppressive ability (WSA), the ability of the crop to reduce weed biomass and seed production. Wild mustard is a dominant weed in rapeseed fields of Iran bringing about major yield losses. A strongly persistent seedbank, competitive growth habit, and high fecundity all contribute to its weedy nature ensuring that it will be a continuing problem. In addition to yield losses in rapeseed, wild mustard can reduce crop quality even at its low densities. The main objective of the current paper is to investigate the competitive ability of the canola against wild mustard, and evaluating of empirical yield loss model in predicting the effect of different densities of wild mustard on canola yield.
Materials and Methods: The experiment was performed in a randomized complete blocks design with four replications using replacement series in which wild mustard and rapeseed were planted in different ratios of 8:0, 6:2, 4:4, 2:6 and 0:8 plants per pot in 2014. Wild mustard and rapeseed seeds were planted in 35 cm diameter plastic pots filled with a sandy clay loam soil and 1 and 2 cm deep, respectively. Plants were harvested from the soil surface at maturity and were oven dried at 75 ͦ C for 48h, while total shoot biomass for each species being determined. Measurements included shoot and root dry weight, plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pod per plant, number seed per pod and plant seed yield in rapeseed. Relative Yield (RY), Relative Yield Total (RYT) and Relative Crowding Coefficient (RCC) were calculated. Relative yield (RY) is a measure of the relative competitive ability of the two species. RY was calculated using the equation:
where Ymix and Ymon are yields in mixture and monoculture.
Relative Yield Total (RYT) describes how the species pair utilizes resources. RYT was calculated using the equation: RYT=
Relative Crowding Coefficient (RCC) is a measure of competitiveness between the two species. The RCC was calculated using the equation:
RCC= Where YAmix and YBmix are average yield per plant of A and of B grown in mixture, respectively, YAmon and YBmon are average yield per plant of A and B grown in monoculture, respectively. Means were compared using Duncans, Multiple Range Test (P 0.05) (SAS, 2002).
Results and Discussion: Results showed that the relative yield of rapeseed decreased in the density ratio of 25 and 50 percent compared to same densities of wild mustard. In comparison, rapeseed in a lower or even equal density was more sensitive to competition than wild mustard and hence it faced to sharp yield decrease. However, in the higher planting densities of 75 percent the relative yield of rapeseed increased and the value reached to 0.497. Regarding the higher values of wild mustard compared to rapeseed’s relative yield in higher density ratios of 50 and 75 percent it can be concluded that wild mustard possesses a higher competitive strength, as a consequence, was able to better use nutrition resources. Grain yield influenced markedly by density ratios (P

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Density
  • Dry weight
  • Relative competition coefficient
  • Relative yield
1- Abdolrahmani B. 2003. Effects of plant density on yield and agronomic traits of sunflower cv. Armavirsky under dryland condition in Maragheh, Iranian Journal of Crop Science, 5: 216-224.
2- Amini A., Sharifzadeh F., Baghestani M.A., Mazaheri D., and Atri A. 2006. Competitive effect of rye (Secale cereal L.) on the growth of winter wheat. Special Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences Resources, Tehran University. Agri. Agrono. Plant Breeding Biotechnology, 37(2): 273-285.
3- Bauman D.T., Bastians L., and Kropff M.J. 2002. Inter cropping system optimization for yield, quality and weed suppression combining mechanistic and descriptive models, Agronomy Journal, 94: 734-742.
4- Black Shaw R.E., Molnar L.J., Muendel H.H., Saind G., and Li X.J. 2002. Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry bean, Weed Technology, 14: 327- 336.
5- Eilkaee M.N., and Emam Y. 2003. Effect of plant density on yield and yield components in two winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cultivars, Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science, 34: 509-515.
6- Fernandez O.N., Vignolio O.R., and Requesens E.C. 2002. Competition between corn (Zea mays) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) in relation to the crop plant arrangement, Agronomy Journal, 22: 293- 305.
7- Fleming G.F., Young F.L., and Ogg A.G. 1988. Competitive relationships among winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum), Weed Science, 36: 479-489.
8- Gaudet C.L., and Keddy P.A. 1988. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits, Nature, 334: 242-243.
9- Ghadiri H. 2005. Effect of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) densities on growth and yield of pinto beans in greenhouse. Proc. 13th European Weed Research Society Symposium. Bari. Italy.
10- Harker K.N., Clayton G.W., Odonovan J.T., and Blackshaw R.E. 2001. Canola variety and seeding rate effects on weed management and yield, Weed Science and Society of America, 41: 25-32.
11- Holman J.D., Bussan A.J., Maxwell B.D., Miller P.R., and Mickelson J.A. 2004. Spring wheat, canola, and sunflower response to Persian darnel (Lolium persicum) interference, Weed Technology, 18: 509-520
12- Iftekhar H.B., Riaz A., Abdul J., Nazir M.S., and Mahmood T. 2006. Competitive behavior of component crops in different Sesame-Legume intercropping systems, Journal of Agricultural Biology, 2: 165-167.
13- Jafari Zadeh S.H., and Modhj A. 2011. Evaluation of weed competition Pnyrk (Malva spp) at different levels of nitrogen on yield, Iranian Crop Science, 42(4): 777-767.
14- Jannink J.L., Orf J.H., Jordan N.R., and Shaw R.G. 2000. Index selection for weed suppressive ability in soybean, Crop Science, 40: 1087–1094.
15- Javanshir A., Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab A., Hamidi A., and Golipor M. 2000. Inter cropping ecology, Ferdosi university press. (In Persian).
16- Khachatourians G., Summer A.K. and Philips P. 2001. An introduction to the history of canola and the scientific basis for innovation. CABI. London.
17- Lemerle D., Verbeek B., and Orchard B. 2001. Ranking the ability of wheat varieties to compete with Lolium rigidum, Weed Research, 41: 197–209.
18- Mac Mullan P.M., Daun J.K., and DeCercq D.R. 1994. Effect of weed mustard (Brassica kaber) competition on yield and quality of triazintolerance and triazin-susceptible canola (Brassica napus and Brassica rapa), Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 74: 369-374.
19- McMullan P.M., Daun J.K., and Declercq D.R. 1994. Effect of wild mustard (Brassica kaber) competition on yield and quality of triazinetolerant and triazinesusceptible canola (Brassica napus and Brassica rapa), Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 74: 369-374.
20- Mirshekari B., and Javanshir A.S. 2008. Reaction of morphological traits, yield and harvest index of rape seed cultivars time weeds weed control, New findings of Agriculture, 4: 411-400.
21- Najafi H., Loui-Hassanzadeh M., Rashed Mohasel M.H., Zand A., and Baghestani M.A. 2006. Ecological management of grass weeds, Plant Pests Diseases Research. Ins. 599 p.
22- Ozer H. 2003. The effect of plant population densities on growth, yield and yield components of two spring rapeseed cultivars, Plant Soil Environment, 49: 422-426.
23- Ozoni Davaji A. 2006. Effects of plant density and planting pattern on yield, yield components and growth indices of apetalous flowers and petalled rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture College, Guilan University. Iran.
24- Radosevich S.R., Holt J., and Ghersa C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for management. John Wiley. 589 p.
25- Rahimian H., and Shariati S.H. 1998. Grass weeds and crop modeling competition, publishing, education agriculture. 294 p.
26- Rahman I., Ahmad H., Serajuddin I., Ahmad I., Abbasi F., Islam M., and Ghafoor S. 2009. Evaluation of rapeseed genotypes for yield and oil quality under rainfed conditions of district Mansehra, African Journal of Biotechnology, 8: 6844-6849.
27- Rose S.P., and Bell J.M. 1982. Reproduction of mice fed low erucic acid rapeseed oil contaminated with weed seed oils, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 62: 617-624.
28- Ross D.M., and Van Acker R.C. 2005. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and landscape position on wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in spring wheat, Weed Science, 53: 869-876.
29- Safahani Langerodi A., Kamkar B., Zand E., Bagherani N., and Bagheri M. 2008. Reaction of grain yield and its components of canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars in competition with wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) in Gorgan, Iranian Journal of Crop Science, 9: 356-370.
30- Safahany Langroodi A.R., Kamkar B., Zand A., Baqrany N., and Bagheri M. 2007. The reaction yield in competition with weeds in oilseed rape and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) in Iran, Iranian Crop Science, 6(4): 370-356.
31- Salehi B. 2004. Effect of row spacing and plant density on grain yield and yield components in maize (cv. Sc 704) in Miyaneh, Iranian Journal of Crop Science, 6: 383-394.
32- Soleimani F., Ahmadvand G., and Sadatyan B. 2010. Indices of growth and yield of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) in competition with wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) affected by different nitrogen levels, Journal of Agriculture and Ecology, 2(4): 547-537.
33- Tingle C.H., Steele G.L., and Chandler J.M. 2003. Competition and control of smell melon (Cucumis melo var. dudaim Naud.) in cotton, Weed Science, 51: 589-591.
34- Van Acker R.C. and Dree R. 1999. Wild oat (Avena Fatua L.) and wild mustard (Brassica kaber) wheller interference in canola (Brassica napus), Weed Science and Society of America. 119 p.
35- Wall D.A. 1997. Dog mustard (Erucastrum gallicum) response to crop competition. Weed Science. 45: 397-403.
36- Warwick S.I., Bechie H.J., Thomas A.G., and Mcdonald T. 2000. The biology of Canadian weeds. 8. Sinapis arvensis L, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 71: 473-480.
37- Wright A.J. 1981. The analysis of yield-density relationship in binary mixture using inverse polynomials, Journal of Agricultural Science, 96: 564-567.