بررسی عملکرد جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) و باقلا (Vicia faba L.) در تراکم و ترکیب های مختلف کشت مخلوط از طریق شاخص های رقابتی

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

مقاله 10، دوره 3، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 7، فروردین 1390، صفحه 94-105   

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jag.v3i1.9974

نویسندگان

فهیمه اسلامی خلیلی؛ همت اله پیردشتی^* ؛ آلاله متقیان

گروه زراعت، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری

چکیده

به منظور بررسی کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) و باقلا (Vicia faba L.) آزمایشی به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک-های کامل تصادفی با دو عامل و سه تکرار در دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع ساری در سال زراعی 87-1386 انجام گرفت. فاکتور اول شامل دو نسبت بذر (D1 (نسبت مطلوب بذر): به ترتیب 75 و 150 کیلوگرم باقلا و جو در هکتار و D2 (نسبت زیاد بذر): به ترتیب 100 و 200 کیلوگرم باقلا و جو در هکتار) و فاکتور دوم شامل نسبت های مختلف کاشت (:P1 تک کشتی باقلا، :P2 50% باقلا+ 50% جو، P3: 75% باقلا+ 25% جو، P4: 25% باقلا+ 75% جو و P5: تک کشتی جو) بود. با محاسبه نسبت برابری زمین (LER) مشخص شد که ترکیب 75 % باقلا+ 25% جو در تراکم بالا و ترکیب 25% باقلا+ 75% جو با تراکم مطلوب از حداکثر کارایی استفاده از زمین برخوردار بودند. با توجه به معنی دار بودن اثر متقابل تراکم در نسبت کشت بر عملکرد و برخی شاخص های رقابتی دو گونه، بیشترین عملکرد جو و باقلا (به ترتیب 66/3306 و 56/4884 کیلوگرم در هکتار) در تک کشتی با تراکم بالا مشاهده شد. در این آزمایش ترکیب 75% باقلا+ 25% جو در تراکم بالا موجب بیشترین عملکرد مخلوط، ضریب غالبیت و 27% افزایش عملکرد جو در مخلوط نسبت به تک کشتی آن گردید. همچنین حداکثر ضریب غالبیت و 17% افزایش عملکرد باقلا در مخلوط نسبت به کشت خالص آن از ترکیب 25% باقلا+ 75% جو با تراکم مطلوب بدست آمد. به علاوه تیمار 75 % باقلا+ 25% جو در نسبت مطلوب بذر از حداکثر شاخص تولید سیستم برخوردار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

افت واقعی عملکرد؛ ضریب غالبیت؛ نسبت برابری زمین

مراجع

1- Agegnehu, G., Ghizam 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.

2- Avis, T. J., Grave, V., Antoun, H., and Tweddell. R.J. 2008. Multifaceted beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant health and productivity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40: 1733-1740.

3- Banik, P. 1996. Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crops Science 176: 289-294.

4- Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K., and Bagchi, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassica compestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row- replacement series systems. Journal of Agronomy and Crops Science 185: 9-14.

5- 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 smoothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325-332.

6- Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichmann, D., and Knox, M. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96: 1730–1738.

7- Corre-Hellou, G., and Crozat, Y. 2004. Interspecific competition for soil N in pea–barley mixtures during the vegetative phase and consequences of N2 fixation. In: AEP, Editor, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Grain Legumes, Dijon, pp. 65–66.

8- Dapaah, H.K., Asafu-Agyei, J.N., Ennin, S.A., and Yamoah, C.Y. 2003. Yield stability of cassava, maize, soybean and cowpea intercrops. Journal of. Agriculture Science 140: 73–82.

9- De Wit, C.T., and Vanden Bergh, J.P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 13: 212–221.

10- Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercropping in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249-256.

11- Geren, H., Avcioglu, R. Soya, H., and Kir, B. 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology 7 (22): 4100-4104.

12- Ghosh, P.K., Mohanty, M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Painuli, D.K., and Misra A.K. 2006. Growth, competition, yields advantage and economics in soybean/pigeon pea intercropping system in semi-arid tropics of India II. Effect of nutrient management. Field Crops Research 96: 90–97.

13- Gillani, S.S., and Bahmanyar, M.A., 2008. Impact of organic amendments with and without mineral fertilizers on soil microbial respiration. Journal of Applied Sciences 8(4): 642-647. (In Persian with English Summary)

14- Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Andersen, M.K., Jqrnsgaard, B., and Jensen, E.S. 2006. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crops Research 95: 256–267.

15- Haymes, R., and Lee, H.C. 1999. Competition between autumn and spring planted grain intercrops of wheat (Triricum aestivum) and field bean (Vicia faba). Field Crops Research 62: 167-176.

16- Hosseini, S.M.B., Mazaheri, D., Jahansouz, M.R., and Yazdi Samadi, B. 2003. The effect of nitrogen levels on yield and components of forage millet (Pennisetum americanum) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in intercropping system. Journal of Pajouhesh va Sazandegi 59: 60-67. (In Persian with English Summary)

17- Jahani, M., Koocheki, A., and Nasiri Mahallati, M., 2008. Comparison of different intercropping arrangements of cumin (Cuminum Cyminum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Iranian Journal of Crop Research 6(1): 67-78. (In Persian with English Summary)

18- Kopke, U., and Nemecek, T. 2010. Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crops Research 115: 217–233.

19- Launay, M., Brisson, N., Satger, S., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Corre-Hellou, G., Asynova, E.K., Ruske, R., Jensen E. S., and Gooding, M. J. 2009. Exploring options for managing strategies for pea–barley intercropping using a modeling approach. European Journal of Agronomy 31(2): 85-98.

20- Li, L., Yang, S., Li, X., Zhang, F., and Christie, F. 1999. Inter specific complementary and competitive interactions between intercropped maize and faba. Plant and Soil 212: 105-114.

21- Malakooti, M. 1996. Sustainable Agriculture and Increasing Yield with Optimization of Fertilizer Application in Iran. Agricultural Education Press. 379 pp. (In Persian)

22- Mazaheri, D., Pasarive, S., Peyghambari, A. 2002. Study and investigation growth analysis in monoculture and multicultural of soybean cultures. Journal of Pajouhesh va Sazandegi 54: 37-54. (In Persian with English Summary)

23- Mushagalusa, G.N., Ledent, J.F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: Effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64: 180–188.

24- Neumann, A., Werner, J., and Rauber, R. 2009. Evaluation of yield–density relationships and optimization of intercrop compositions of field-grown pea–oat intercrops using the replacement series and the response surface design. Field Crops Research 114: 286–294.

25- Odo, P.E. 1991. Evaluation of short and tall sorghum varieties in mixtures with cowpea in the Sudan savanna of Nigeria: land equivalent ratio, grain yield and system productivity index. Experimental Agriculture 27: 435–441.

26- SAS Institute. 1997. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary. NC, USA.

27- Schmidtke, K., Neumann, A., Hof, C., and Rauber, R. 2004. Soil and atmospheric nitrogen uptake by lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. Nudum L.) as monocrops and intercrops. Field Crops Research 87:245-256.

28- Taghizade, M.S., and Koocheki, A. 2005. Effect of different seed ratio and plant density in intercropping soybean cultures. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Industries 2(1): 33-44. (In Persian with English Summary)

29- Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. 2005. A simulation model of cereal-legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions. II. Model application. Field Crops Research 93: 23-33.

30- Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping its importance and research needs. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 1-10.

31- Xu, B., Shan, L., Zhang, S., Deng, X., and Li, F. 2008. Evaluation of switch grass and sainfoin intercropping under 2:1 row-replacement in semiarid region, northwest China. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(22): 4056-4067.

32- Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Forestry 32: 111-119.