ارزیابی شاخص‌های رقابتی و کارایی کشت مخلوط پنبه- چغندر علوفه‌ای در شرایط تداخل علف هرز

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه اگروتکنولوژی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

به‌منظور ارزیابی تأثیر شاخص‌های رقابتی و کارایی کشت مخلوط پنبه-چغندر علوفه­ای در شرایط تداخل علف­های هرز، آزمایشی به‌صورت فاکتوریل خرد شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد انجام شد. تیمارها شامل الگوی کشت مخلوط پنبه-چغندر علوفه­ای در دو سطح کشت مخلوط بین ردیفی و کشت مخلوط درون ردیفی و نسبت کشت مخلوط در پنج سطح شامل 75: 25، 50: 50، 25: 75 و کشت خالص دو گیاه پنبه و چغندر علوفه‌ای به‌عنوان عامل اصلی و تداخل علف‌های هرز در دو سطح شامل وجین و عدم وجین تمام‌ فصل علف هرز به‌عنوان عامل فرعی بودند. نتایج نشان داد که اثر الگوی کشت مخلوط و برهمکنش الگوی کشت و نسبت‌های کاشت مخلوط پنبه–چغندر علوفه‌ای بر تراکم و وزن خشک کل علف‌های هرز معنی‌دار نبود، اما اثر نسبت‌های مختلف کشت مخلوط پنبه–چغندر علوفه‌ای بر وزن خشک کل علف­های هرز معنی‌دار بود. در نسبت کشت 25: 75 از پنبه-چغندر علوفه­ای، وزن خشک علف­های هرز پایین­تر از سایر نسبت‌های اختلاط بود. در شرایط تداخل و یا عدم تداخل علف­های هرز، حداقل 50 درصد کاهش در عملکرد وش پنبه و 83 درصد کاهش در عملکرد ریشه چغندر علوفه‌ای در شرایط کشت مخلوط، در مقایسه با کشت خالص هر یک از گیاهان مشاهده شد. دو شاخص نسبت برابری زمین و کاهش عملکرد واقعی نشان‌دهنده برتری کشت خالص پنبه نسبت به کشت مخلوط بود، ولی شاخص مجموع ارزش نسبی بیان‌کننده برتری کشت مخلوط پنبه-چغندر علوفه‌ای نسبت به کشت خالص پنبه بود. به‌طوری‌که کاشت مخلوط پنبه-چغندر علوفه­ای با نسبت 75:25 موجب شد در شرایط حضور و عدم حضور علف هرز مجموع ارزش نسبی به‌ترتیب 5/2 و 6/8 برابر کشت خالص پنبه افزایش یابد. شاخص­های رقابتی شامل ضریب ازدحام نسبی، نسبت رقابت و شاخص غالبیت نشان دادند که چغندر علوفه­ای نسبت به پنبه از قدرت رقابتی بالاتری برخوردار بود. به‌طور کلی نتایج این آزمایش نشان داد که کشت مخلوط پنبه-چغندر علوفه­ای به‌صورت جانشینی، فقط از نظر یکی از شاخص‌های ارزیابی کشت مخلوط (مجموع ارزش نسبی) مناسب بود و درمجموع قابل توصیه نیست. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Competitive Indices and Cultivation Efficiency of Cotton-Fodder Beet Intercropping under Weed Interference Conditions

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Rastgoo
  • Gh. Asadi
  • A. Dopoor Sorkhsaraei
  • S. Rahimi
Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran,
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Intercropping involves growing more than one crop in the same field at the same time. Intercropping increase diversity in the cropping system and enhance the utilization of resources such as light, heat and water. This practice can also help to suppress weeds and increase the likelihood of being able to reduce herbicide use in the cropping system. Alternatively, in organic systems where herbicides are not used, intercropping can reduce the yield loss potential and provide stability in the system. In recent years, native cotton growers in Khorasan region, especially in Torbat-e Jam region, using the intercropping of cotton-fodder beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris L.), while facilitating the growth of fodder beet plant providing forage for livestock and increasing land income in the cotton crop. Placement of fodder beet plants in or between rows of cotton cultivation accelerates the conquest of space and resources compared to cotton monoculture. Little information is available on the cultivation of fodder beet - cotton intercropping and its effects on the yield of both plants, as well as the potential of this crop system in weed control. Therefore, this experiment was designed with the aim of the effect of cotton- fodder beet intercropping on weed control and evaluation of intercropping and competitive indices in Mashhad region.
Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the effect of cotton-fodder beet intercropping on weed suppression, a split factorial experiment was conducted based on a randomized complete block design with three replications at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad research farm. Treatments include intercropping pattern at two levels of inter-row and intra-row intercropping and the ratio of cotton-fodder beet substitution intercropping at five levels including 75: 25, 50: 50, 25: 75 and monoculture of cotton and fodder beet as the main factor and weed interference at two levels including weeding and non-weeding throughout the weed season as a secondary factor. Land equivalent ratio for cotton, land equivalent ratio for fodder beet, total land equivalent ratio , actual yield loss for cotton, actual yield loss for fodder beet, total actual yield loss, relative value total for cotton, relative crowding coefficient for cotton, relative crowding coefficient for fodder beet, total relative crowding coefficient, aggressivity, competitive ratio for cotton, and  competitive ratio for fodder beet were the indices which calculated and used as a basis for the evaluation of cotton – fodder beet intercropping.
Analysis of variance was performed using generalized linear models through GLMMIX procedure in SAS 9.4 software environment. The effect of three factors: intercropping pattern, intercropping ratio and weed interference and their interaction with each other were considered as fixed effects and block and block effect, mixed intercropping pattern, intercropping ratio and total error were considered as random variables in the model. Comparison of means of the simple effects of factors and their interaction were performed using the least squares mean comparison method in the same procedure.
Results and Discussion: The results showed that the effect of intercropping pattern and intercropping proportion on total weed density was not significant, but was significant on total dry weight of weeds, although it was still not significant compared to monoculture of cotton. Accordingly, at a 25: 75 crop proportion of cotton - fodder beet, the dry weight of weeds was lower than other intercropping proportion. Also, the effect of intercropping pattern on both crop traits was not significant, but the ratio of intercropping on cotton and fodder beet traits was significant. In terms of interference or non-interference of weeds, at least 50% reduction in cotton lint yield and 83% reduction in fodder beet root yield was observed in intercropping conditions, compared to monoculture of each plant. The two indices of land equivalent ratio and actual yield loss showed the superiority of cotton monoculture over intercropping, but the relative value total index expressed the superiority of cotton-fodder beet intercropping over cotton monoculture. So that intercropping of cotton-fodder beet with a ratio of 75:25, in the presence and absence of weeds, the relative value total increased by 2.5 and 8.6 times, respectively, of cotton monoculture. Competitive indices including relative crowding coefficient, competition ratio and aggressivity index showed that fodder beet has higher competitive power than cotton. In general, the results of this experiment showed that cotton-beet forage intercropping, although it had no significant effect on weed control, is still recommended in terms of mixed crop evaluation indicators.
Conclusion: In general, the results of this experiment showed that the cotton-fodder beet intercropping, as replacement pattern, had no significant effect on weed control, and considering that it was suitable only in terms of one of the evaluation indices (relative value total), it is not generally recommendable.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Lint yield
  • Relative value total
  • Replacement series
  1. Ahmadi K., Ebadzadeh H.R., Abdeshah H., Kazemian A., and Rafiei M. 2018. Agricultural Statistics; 2016-17 growing season (Vol.1). Iranian Ministry of Agriculture. 116 Pp. (In Persian)
  2. Akram Ghaderi F., Sirani S., Aghajari A.A.Gh., Sohrabi B., and Younesabadi M. 2006. Determination of the critical period of weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in Gorgan. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science 37: 167-175. (In Persian with English abstract)
  3. 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.‏
  4. Barati Mahmoodi H., Jami Alahmadi M., Rashed Mohassel M.H., Mahmoodi S., and Shikhzadeh N. 2012. The Effect of integrated weed management (chemical and mechanical) on density and dry weight of weed and introduction of new herbicide (envoke) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) field in Birjand region. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 9: 176-181. (In Persian with English abstract)
  5. Buchanan G.A., and Burns E.R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Science 18: 149-154.
  6. Choubforoush Khoei B., Amini R., Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab A., and Raei Y. 2020. Effect of soybean, moldavian balm and proso millet intercropping on growth characteristics and yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Agricultural Science 30: 41-58. (In Persian with English abstract)
  7. Dhima K.V., Lithourgidis A.S., Vasilakoglou I.B., and Dordas C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.‏
  8. Doğan M.N., Jabran K., and Unay A. 2014. Integrated Weed Management in Cotton. Recent advances in weed management. Springer. 197-222 Pp.
  9. Fathollahzadeh Dizaji R., and Mirshekari B. 2014. Additive intercropping of marigold (Calendula officinalis) and mungbean (Vigna radiata): a strategy for yield improvement and weeds control. Research in Field Crop Journal 1: 56-68. (In Persian with English abstract)
  10. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2019. FAO Statistical. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.
  11. Frison E.A., Cherfas J., and Hodgkin T. 2011. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability 3: 238–253.
  12. Ghosh P.K. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crop Research 88: 227-237.
  13. Hauggaard-Nielsen H., Jørnsgaard B., Kinane J., and Jensen E.S. 2008. Grain legume-cereal intercropping: the practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renew. Agricultural Food Systems 23: 3–12.
  14. Jamshidi K., Mazaheri D., Majnoun Hosseini N., Rahimian Mashhadi H., and Peyghambari A. 2011. Investigation of corn/cowpea intercropping effect on suppressing the weeds. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 42: 233-241. (In Persian with English abstract)
  15. Jayakumar M., and Surendran U. 2017. Intercropping and balanced nutrient management for sustainable cotton production. Journal of Plant Nutrition 40: 632-644.
  16. Kandhro M.N., Tunio S., Rajpar I., and Chachar Q. 2014. Allelopathic impact of sorghum and sunflower intercropping on weed management and yield enhancement in cotton. Sarhad Journal of Agricultural Science 30: 311–318.
  17. Khazaie M. 2015. The study of maize and Sugar beet intercropping. Journal of Crops Improvement 16: 987-997. (In Persian with English abstract).
  18. Koochaki A., Nasiri Mahalati M., Moradi R., and Alizadeh Y. 2015. Effect of different nitrogen levels on yield and nitrogen use efficiency in corn-cotton intercropping. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 13: 1-13. (In Persian with English abstract)
  19. Liebman M., and Dyck E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications 3: 92–122.
  20. Littell R.C., Stroup W.W., Milliken G.A., Wolfinger R.D., and Schabenberger O. 2006. SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute.
  21. Mansouri L., Jamshidi K., Rastgoo M., Saba J., and Mansouri H. 2013. The effect of additive maize-bean intercropping on yield, yield components and weeds control in zanjan climate conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 11: 483-492. (In Persian with English abstract)
  22. Mardan poor F., Arian nia N., and Lorzadeh Sh. 2017 .Effect of intercropping of maize and bean on growth weeds control and yield plant in Gotvand area. Journal of Plant Production Sciences 7: 32-40. (In Persian with English abstract)
  23. Mead R., and Wiley R.W. 1980. The concept of a "Land Equivalent Ratio" and advantage in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16: 217-228.
  24. Mehni J., Mahdavi B., Azari A., Afkar S., and Hashemi S. 2020. Evaluation of yield and productivity indices of black cumin and fenugreek intercropping under weedy and weed-free conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 51: 73-87. (In Persian with English abstract)
  25. Mohler C.L., and Liebman M. 1987. Weed productivity and composition in sole crops and intercrops of barley and field pea. Journal of Applied Ecology 24: 685-699.
  26. Moradi R., Koocheki A., Nasiri Mahallati M. 2017.Evaluation of economical yield and radiation use efficiency of maize and cotton in sole and ‎intercropping systems as affected by different levels of Nitrogen. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 7:47-59. (In Persian with English abstract)
  27. Pannacci E., Lattanzi B., and Tei F. 2017. Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: A review. Crop Protection 96: 44-58.
  28. Rajab M.N., Salem A.K., and Abdel-Galil A.M. 2014. Increasing fodder beet productivity by intercropping with some field crops. Journal of Plant Production 5: 821-836.
  29. Richardson R.J., Wilson H.P., and Hines T.E. 2007. Preemergence herbicides followed by Trifluxysulfuron postemergence in cotton. Weed Technology 21: 1-6.
  30. Saeed M., Shahid M.R.M., Jabbar A., Ullah E., and Khan MB. 1999. Agro-economic measurement of different cotton based inter-relay cropping system in two geometrical patterns. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 4: 234–237.
  31. Salimi H., Bazoubandi M., and Fereidoonpour M. 2010. Investigating different methods of integrated weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Journal of Crop Production 3: 187-197. (In Persian with English abstract).
  32. Shetty S.V.R., and Rao A.N. 1981. Weed management studies in sorghum/pigeonpea and pearl millet/groundnut intercrop systems-some observations. Pp 238-248 in International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Proceedings of the International Work- shop on Intercropping, 10-13 January 1979, Hyderabad, India. ICRISAT, Patencheru, India.
  33. Singh S. 2014. Sustainable weed management in cotton. Haryana Journal of Agronomy 30: 1-14.
  34. Vandermeer J.H. 1992. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press.‏
  35. Weerarathne L.V.Y., Marambe B., and Chauhan B.S. 2016. Intercropping as an effective component of integrated weed management in tropical root and tuber crops: A review. Crop Protection 95: 89-100.‏
  36. Xia J.Y., Wang J., Cui J.J., Leffelaar P.A., Rabbinge R., and van der Werf W. 2018. Development of a stage-structured process-based predator–prey model to analyse biological control of cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii, by the seven spot ladybeetle, Coccinella septempunctata, in cotton. Ecological Complexity 33: 11-30.
  37. Yazdani S., Shahbazi H., and Kavoosi Kelashami M. 2011. Assessment of indirect production function and budget constraint in Khorasan provinces' cotton production. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research 41: 425-433. (In Persian with English abstract).
  38. Zand E., Baghestani M.A., Nezamabadi N., Shimi P., and Mousavi S.K. 2017. A Guide to Chemical Control of Weeds in Iran. Jahad e Daneshgahi Mashhad Press. 224 Pp. (In Persian)
  39. Zhang L.Z., Van der Werf W., Zhang S.P., Li B., and Spiertz J.H.J. 2007. Growth, yield and quality of wheat and cotton in relay strip intercropping systems. Field Crops Research 103: 178-188.