اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات52
تعداد شماره‌ها2,130
تعداد مقالات22,008
تعداد مشاهده مقاله94,309,621
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله29,326,951
صلواتی, طالب, حیدری, غلامرضا, مجیدی, محمد, خالص رو, شیوا. (1404). مقایسه عملکرد و کیفیت علوفه در کشت مخلوط چاودار (Secale cereale L.) و ماشک گل‌خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa Roth.) تحت سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 23(2), 109-129. doi: 10.22067/jcesc.2024.88050.1325
طالب صلواتی; غلامرضا حیدری; محمد مجیدی; شیوا خالص رو. "مقایسه عملکرد و کیفیت علوفه در کشت مخلوط چاودار (Secale cereale L.) و ماشک گل‌خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa Roth.) تحت سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 23, 2, 1404, 109-129. doi: 10.22067/jcesc.2024.88050.1325
صلواتی, طالب, حیدری, غلامرضا, مجیدی, محمد, خالص رو, شیوا. (1404). 'مقایسه عملکرد و کیفیت علوفه در کشت مخلوط چاودار (Secale cereale L.) و ماشک گل‌خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa Roth.) تحت سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 23(2), pp. 109-129. doi: 10.22067/jcesc.2024.88050.1325
صلواتی, طالب, حیدری, غلامرضا, مجیدی, محمد, خالص رو, شیوا. مقایسه عملکرد و کیفیت علوفه در کشت مخلوط چاودار (Secale cereale L.) و ماشک گل‌خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa Roth.) تحت سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1404; 23(2): 109-129. doi: 10.22067/jcesc.2024.88050.1325

مقایسه عملکرد و کیفیت علوفه در کشت مخلوط چاودار (Secale cereale L.) و ماشک گل‌خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa Roth.) تحت سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران
مقاله 1، دوره 23، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 78، تیر 1404، صفحه 109-129    اصل مقاله (814.29 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jcesc.2024.88050.1325
نویسندگان
طالب صلواتی1؛ غلامرضا حیدری* 1؛ محمد مجیدی2؛ شیوا خالص رو1
1گروه تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
2سازمان جهاد کشاورزی استان کردستان، سنندج، ایران
چکیده
به‌منظور بررسی تأثیر سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی درکشت مخلوط چاودار (Secale cereale L.) و ماشک گل‌خوشه‌ای (Vicia villosa Roth) آزمایشی در سال زراعی 1398-1397 به‌صورت اسپلیت‌پلات در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار اجرا شد. روش‌های خاک‌ورزی شامل بدون خاک‌ورزی، کم خاک‌ورزی و خاک‌ورزی رایج به‌عنوان فاکتور اصلی و الگوهای کشت مخلوط چاودار و ماشک در پنج سطح شامل 100 درصد ماشک، 75 درصد ماشک + 25 درصد چاودار، 50 درصد ماشک + 50 درصد چاودار، 25 درصد ماشک + 75 درصد چاودار و 100 درصد چاودار به‌عنوان عامل فرعی در نظر گرفته شد. صفات مورد مطالعه شامل تعداد گره در ریشه ماشک، عملکرد علوفه خشک ماشک و چاودار، نسبت برابری زمین، الیاف نامحلول در شوینده اسیدی و خنثی، ماده خشک قابل هضم و درصد خاکستر بود. نتایج نشان داد که در بین ترکیب‌های کشت مخلوط، بیشترین عملکرد علوفه خشک چاودار ( kg ha-11625) در تیمار 75 درصد چاودار + 25 درصد ماشک و در سیستم‌ خاک‌ورزی متداول حاصل شد که با تیمار 75 درصد چاودار + 25 درصد ماشک در سیستم خاک‌ورزی کاهش‌یافته اختلاف معنی‌داری نداشت. در تمامی سیستم‌های خاکورزی مورد آزمایش، الگوی کشت 50 درصد ماشک + 50 درصد چاودار، نسبت برابری زمین (LER) بالاتری داشت. بررسی نتایج کیفیت علوفه نشان داد که الیاف نامحلول در شوینده اسیدی (ADF) و خنثی (NDF) در خاک‌ورزی رایج و کشت خالص چاودار بیشتر از سایر تیمارهای مورد آزمایش بود، درحالی‌که با افزایش نسبت ماشک در کشت مخلوط، مقدار الیاف نامحلول کاهش پیدا کرد. بیشترین ماده خشک قابل هضم (DMD) به‌میزان 445.6 گرم بر کیلوگرم به تیمار شخم کاهشی مربوط بود. این یافته‌ها بر پتانسیل استفاده از خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی و سیستم‌های کشت مخلوط به‌عنوان راهبرد‌های مؤثر کشاورزی برای افزایش کمیت و کیفیت تولید علوفه تأکید می‌کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی؛ عملکرد علوفه؛ قابلیت هضم علوفه؛ نسبت برابری زمین
مراجع
  1. Afzalinia, S., & Karami, A. (2018). Effect of conservation tillage on soil properties and corn yield in the corn-wheat rotation. Iranian Journal of Biosystem Engineering, 49(1), 129-137. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijbse.2017.243058.664995
  2. Ahmadi, S., Fateh, E., & Aynehband, A. (2019). The effect of different barley and hairy vetch row intercropping sowing pattern and phosphorus fertilizer on dry matter production and forage quality. Electronic Journal of Crop Production, 11(4), 89-102. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/ejcp.2019.14529.2098
  3. Akhtar, M. F. U. Z., Jamil, M., Ahamd, M., & Abbasi, G. H. (2017). Evaluation of biofertilizer in combination with organic amendments and rock phosphate enriched compost for improving productivity of chickpea and maize. Soil and Environment, 36(1), 59-69.
  4. Amori, A., Roshanfekr, H., & Hasibi, P. (2017). The study of mixcropping on row of oat and vetch in Ahvaz. Journal of Crops Improvement, 19(2), 303-317. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2017.60414
  5. Ansar, M., Ahmed, Z. I., Malik, M. A., Nadeem, M., Majeed, A., & Rischkowsky, B. A. (2010). Forage yield and quality potential of winter cereal-vetch mixtures under rainfed conditions. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 22(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v22i1.4904
  6. AOAC. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. AOAC International.
  7. Asadi, , Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., & Amirnia, R. (2019). Effect of planting pattern and fertilizer source on agronomic characteristics of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in intercroppng under rainfed conditions. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 21(1), 16-30. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.29252/abj.21.1.16
  8. Ashoori, N., Abdi, M., Golzardi, F., Ajali, J., & Ilkaee, M. N. (2021). Forage potential of sorghum-clover intercropping systems in semi-arid conditions. Bragantia, 80, e1421. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20200423
  9. Awal, M. A., Pramanik, M. H. R., & Hossen, M. A. (2007). Interspecies competition, growth and yield in barley-peanut intercropping. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 6(4), 577-584. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2007.577.584
  10. Baghdadi, A., Halim. R. A, Ghasemzadeh, A., & Ebrahimi, M. (2016). Effect of intercropping of corn and soyabean on dry matter yield and nutritive value of forage corn. Legume Research, 39(6), 976-981. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v39i6.6643
  11. Bagnall, D. K., Jones, E. J., Balke, S., Morgan, C. L., & McBratney, A. B. (2020). An in situ method for quantifying tillage effects on soil structure using multistripe laser triangulation. Geoderma, 380, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114642
  12. Bakhtiyari, F., Zamanian, M., & Golzardi, F. (2020). Effect of mixed intercropping of clover on forage yield and quality. South-Western Journal of Horticulture, Biology and Environment, 11(1), 49-65.
  13. Budakli Carpici, E., & Celik, N. (2014). Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with triticale and annual ryegrass. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 19(1), 66-69.
  14. Chaghazardi, H., Jahansuz, M. R., Ahmadi, A., & Gorji, M. (2016). Study of different tillage methods on some soil properties, seed yield and morphological traits of wheat and chickpea under rainfed conditions of Sarpolezahab region. Journal of Crops Improvement, 18(3), 581-594. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2016.56622
  15. Contreras‐Govea, F. E., Albrecht, K. A., & Muck, R. E. (2006). Spring yield and silage characteristics of kura clover, winter wheat, and in mixtures. Agronomy Journal, 98(3), 781-787.
  16. Dehghanian, H., Barmaki, M., Dabbagh Mohamadi Nasab, A., & Seifdavati, J. (2020). Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus)-cereal intercropping: Evaluation of productivity and some indices of forage quality. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 30(3), 61-76. (in Persian with English abstract). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24764310.1399.30.3.4.9
  17. Ditsch, D. D., & Bitzer, M. J. (2005). Managing small grains for livestock forage. Department of Agronomy. University of Kent. Available at: https://forages.ca.uky.edu/files/small_grains_for_forage_agr160.pdf.
  18. Du, J. B., Han, T. F., Gai, J. Y., Yong, T. W., Xin, S. U. N., Wang, X. C., & Yang, W. Y. (2018). Maize-soybean strip intercropping: Achieved a balance between high productivity and sustainability. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 17(4), 747-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61789-1
  19. Ehsanifar, A. R., Dahmardeh, M., & Khammari, I. (2015). Effect of different tillage systems on yield and yield components in cowpea-millet intercropping. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(11), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i11/71779
  20. Fateh, E., Tarighi, S., & Aynehband, A. (2018). The effect of different barley (Hordeum vulgare) and fenugreek (Trigonella foenum- graecum) intercropping planting ratio under nitrogen fertilizer on dry matter quality and quantity. Crop Production, 11(1), 23-35. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/ejcp.2018.12601.1982
  21. Favre, J. R., Castiblanco, T. M., Combs, D. K., Wattiaux, M. A., & Picasso, V.D. (2019). Forage nutritive value and predicted fiber digestibility of Kernza intermediate wheatgrass in monoculture and in mixture with red clover during the first production year. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 258, 114-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114298
  22. Gozubuyuk, Z., Sahin, U., Ozturk, I., Celik, A., & Adiguzel, M.C. (2014). Tillage effects on certain physical and hydraulic properties of a loamy soil under a crop rotation in a semi-arid region with a cool climate. Catena, 118, 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.01.006
  23. Heidari, G., Mohammadi, K., & Sohrabi, Y. (2016). Responses of soil microbial biomass and enzyme activities to tillage and fertilization systems in soybean (Glycine max) production. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 17-30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01730
  24. Heydarpour, N., Namdari, A., & Baghbani-Arani, A. (2018). Evaluation of quantitative yield and some physical properties of soil in three years mixed barley (Khorram)-vetch forage (Vicia sativa) cropping system under rain-fed conditions. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 28(4), 1-14. (in Persian with English abstract).
  25. Idowu, O. J., Sultana, S., Darapuneni, M., Beck, L., & Steiner, R. (2019). Short-term conservation tillage effects on corn silage yield and soil quality in an irrigated, arid agroecosystem. Agronomy, 9(8), 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9080455
  26. Indoria, A. K., Srinivasa-Rao, C., Sharma, K. L., & Sammi-Reddy, K. (2017). Conservation agriculture–A panacea to improve soil physical health. Current Science, 112(52), 52-61.
  27. Issaka, F., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Z.Q., Asenso, E., Li, J. H., Li, Y. T., & Wang, J. J. (2019). Sustainable conservation tillage improves soil nutrients and reduces nitrogen and phosphorous losses in maize farmland in Southern China. Sustainability, 11(8), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082397
  28. Javanmard, A., Dabbagh-Mohammadi-Nasab, A., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M., & Janmohammadi, H. (2009). Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 7(1), 163-166.
  29. Javanmard, A., Nouri, M., Ostadi, A., Rebati, J., Nouraein, M., & Shabahang J. (2022). The effects of different tillage systems and fertilizer resources on the growth, yield component, and economic efficiency of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) under rainfed condition. Journal of Agroecology, 14(2), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.22067/agry.2021.20326.0
  30. Javanmard, A., Rostami, A., Nouraein, M., & Gharekhany, G. (2016). Agronomical, ecological and economical evaluation of wheat-chickpea intercropping under rainfed condition of Maragheh. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 26(1), 19-37. (In Persian with English Summary).
  31. Khan, R., Biswas, S., Kundu, C. K., Jana, K., & Bandopadhyay, R. R. P. (2021). Effect of conservation tillage practices on growth attributes of different fodder crops and soil moisture depletion. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 9(1), 1846-1852. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2021.v9.i1z.11494
  32. Lamei Hervani, J. (2013). Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yeilds, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in rainfed comditions of Zanjan province in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal, 29(2), 169-183. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/sppj.2017.110508
  33. Lithourgidis, A. S., Vlachostergios, D. N., Dordas, C. A., & Damalas, C. A. (2021). Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(4), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.007
  34. Metwally, A. A., Safina, S. A., & Noaman, A. H. (2015). Yield and land equivalent ratio of intercropping maize with Egyptian cotton. Journal of Agri-Food and Applied Sciences, 3(4), 85-93.
  35. Mohavieh Asadi, N., Bijanzadeh, E., Behpouri, A., & Barati, V. (2020). Effect of relay intercropping of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) with barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) on biochemical traits and yield under late season drought stress. Iranian Journal Pulses Research, 11(2), 164-182. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/ijpr.v11i2.78361
  36. Moradi, P., Asghari, J., Mohsen-Abadi, G.R., & Samiezadeh, H. (2015). Evaluation of forage quantity and quality in intercropping maize with pinto bean and naked pumpkin. Journal of Crops Improvement, 17(3), 683-699. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2015.54379
  37. Nakhzari Moghaddam, A. (2014). The yield and forage quality of intercropping barley and mustard in different planting dates. Journal of Crop Production, 5(4), 173-190. (in Persian with English abstract). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.2008739.1391.5.4.10.5
  38. Nakhzari Moghaddam, A. (2016). Effects of nitrogen and different intercropping arrangements of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) on forage yield and competitive indices. Journal of Agroecology, 8(1), 47-58. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v8i1.12534
  39. Neugschwandtner, R. W., & Kaul, H. P. (2015). Nitrogen uptake, use and utilization efficiency by oat–pea intercrops. Field Crops Research, 179, 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.04.018
  40. Nurjaya, I. G. M. O., & Agung, I. G. A. M. S. (2012). Effects of tillage on forage legumes growth and subsequent dry matter yields of corn planted for livestock feeding. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2(4), 616-625. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2012/1660
  41. Oddy, V. H., Robards, G. E., & Low, S. G. (1983). Prediction of in vivo dry matter digestibility from the fibre and nitrogen content of a feed. In ‘Feed Information and Animal Production’. G. E. Robards, & R. G. Packham (Eds). pp. 395–398.
  42. Oehl, F., & Koch, B. (2018). Diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in no-till and conventionally tilled vineyards. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, 91, 56–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.5073/JABFQ.2018.091.008
  43. Pakgohar, N., Ghanbari, A., & Farahbakhsh, A. (2014). Investigation of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of green pea (Lathyrus sativus) and nutrifed millet (Pennisetum sp.) forage in different cultivation patterns. Agroecology, 6(1), 108-117. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v6i1.35678
  44. Pinnamaneni, S. R., Mubvumba, P., Anapalli, S., & Reddy, K. N. (2022). Cereal rye cover crop impacts on soybean (Glycine max) root growth and soil properties. Frontiers in Soil Science, 2, 970380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2022.970380
  45. Pooryousef, M., & Alizadeh, K. (2018). Evaluation of different smooth vetch and winter type barley mix cropping systems under Mahabad cold dryland conditions. Iranian Journal of Dryland Agriculture, 7(1), 1-13. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/idaj.2018.115759.183
  46. Rabiee, M., & Farahdahr, F. (2020). Evaluation of yield and advantages of forage legumes with cereals intercropping as second crop in paddy fields. Plant Productions, 43(3), 363-374. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2019.27838.1689
  47. Rashidi, M., & Keshavarzpour, F. (2007). Effect of different tillage methods on soil physical properties and crop yield of watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris). Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 2, 1-16.
  48. Renzi, J. P., Chantre, G. R., & Cantamutto, M. A. (2016). Self-regeneration of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) as affected by seedling density and soil tillage method in a semi-arid agroecosystem. Grass and Forage Science, 72(3), 524-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12255
  49. Saha, S., Chakraborty, D., Sharma, A. R., & Kalra, N. (2010). Effect of tillage and residue management on soil Physical-Indian mustard system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 80(8), 679-685.
  50. Salehi, Z., Amirnia, R., Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., & Khalilvandi-Behrozyar, H. (2018). Evaluation of yield and some qualitative traits of forage in intercropping of triticale with annual legumes. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 28(4), 59-76. (in Persian with English abstract).
  51. Schillinger, W. F., Young, D. L., Kennedy, A. C., & Paulitz, T. C. 2010. Diverse no-till irrigated crop rotations instead of burning and plowing continuous wheat. Field Crops Research, 115(1), 39-49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.10.001
  52. Schlegel, H. J. (2013) Rye: Genetics, Breeding, and Cultivation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis. 359 pp. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15553
  53. Shahbazi, S., Jalilian, J., Alizadeh, K., & Javanmard, A. (2022). Evaluation of chemical and organic-biofertilizer treatments on yield and forage quality of triticale and Maragheh Smoth vetch under sole and intercropping systems in rainfed condition. Iranian Dryland Agronomy Journal, 10(2), 199-226. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/idaj.2022.356297.352
  54. Simmons, B. L., & Coleman, D. C. (2008). Microbial community response to transition from conventional to conservation tillage in cotton fields. Applied Soil Ecology, 40, 518-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.08.003
  55. Sori, S., Amirnia, R., Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., & Sheikh, F. (2020). Evaluation of yield and yield components of different faba bean (Vicia faba) varieties in intercropping with triticale (Tritico secale). Journal of Agroecology, 12(1), 143-159. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v12i1.81918
  56. Stagnari, F., Maggio, A., Galieni, A., & Pisante, M. (2017). Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: an overview. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 4(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-016-0085-1
  57. Toreifi, S. H., Fateh, E., & Aynehband, A. (2018). Effect of different barley (Hordeum vulgare) and fenugreek (Trigonella foenum- graecum) intercropping planting ratio and nitrogen fertilizer on dry matter quality and quantity. Journal of Crop Production, 11(1), 23-35. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/ejcp.2018.12601.1982
  58. Van der Werf, W., Zhang, L., Li, C., Chen, P., Feng, C., Xu, Z., Zhang, C., Gu, C., Bastiaans, L., Makowski, D., & Stomph, T. J. (2021). Comparing performance of crop species mixtures and pure stands. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering, 8, 481–489. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021413
  59. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  60. Xiao, J. X., Yin, X. H., Ren, J. B., Zhang, M., Tang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Complementation drives higher growth rate and yield of wheat and savesnitrogen fertilizer in wheat and faba bean intercropping. Field Crops Research, 221, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.12.009
  61. Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., & Erayman, M. (2008). Identification of advantages of maize – legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the east Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 32(2), 111-119.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 240
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 139


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب