Evaluation of Growth and Species Composition of Weeds in Maize-Cowpea Intercropping based on Additive Series under Organic Farming Condition

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

Article 4, Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 28, June 2016, Pages 227-240   

Document Type: Scientific - Research

DOI: 10.22067/jag.v8i2.40778

Authors

Hamdollah Eskandari^* ; Ashraf Alizadeh-Amraie

Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
Weeds are main factors reducing crops yield, especially under organic farming conditions (). It has been reported that weed populations are more in organic farming compared to conventional cropping systems, resulting in more reduction of growth and yield. Although the chemical control is a fast and effective way for controlling weed populations, some negative impacts of the recent weed management on public health and the natural environment, increased the concerns of using weed chemical compositions. Thus, non-chemical weed control is in high importance. Intercropping, an agronomical operation in which two or more crops are grown simultaneously in the same field, is one of the most important methods for increasing biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems (Amosse et al., 2013; Rostami et al., 2009; Yuan-Quan et al., 2012). Therefore, the current research was aimed to evaluate the possible non chemical controlling of weeds in a maize-cowpea intercropping system.
Materials and methods
A field experiment was conducted in the north of Khuzestan during the growing season 2013-2014. The experiment was based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. Maize and cowpea were planted in two sole crop systems and four intercropping systems based on an additive series, including T1:100 percent maize+25 percent cowpea, T2: 100 percent maize+50 percent cowpea, T3: 100 percent maize+75 percent cowpea and T4: 100 percent maize+100 percent cowpea. No chemical materials (fertilizer and pesticide) were used during growing season. Environmental usage by intercropping patterns was evaluated by measuring photosynthetically active radiations (PAR) (mean of five points in each plot, selected randomly) and soil moisture content at three stages. At harvest time, all plants of each plot were harvested and grouped and weighed according to their species type. Complementary effect of intercropping in using environmental resources was calculated using relative yield total (RYT) index. Weed smothering efficiency (WSE) was used to evaluate the effect of intercropping on reducing weeds the dry weight.
Results and discussion
Results indicated that soil moisture content, PAR interception and soil temperature were affected by cropping patterns. The lowest and highest values of soil temperatures were observed in intercropping and sole crop systems, respectively. Intercropping systems exploited soil water more than sole crops. PAR interception was higher in intercropping compared to sole cropping. However, sole cowpea showed lower PAR interception compared to maize sole crop. Relative yield total (RYT) index was more than unity in all intercropping systems. Weed smothering efficiency (WSE) showed that dry weight of weeds was reduced by 21-26 and 28-42 percentages in intercropping systems compared to sole maize and sole cowpea cropping systems, respectively. The growth of weeds (in terms of total dry weight) in intercropping systems were reduced in which from five recorded weed species, the dry weight of them, including amaranth (Amaranthus retondus L.), pigweed (Echinocloa cruss-gali L.), purslane (Portulaca oleraceae L.) and Halikakabon (Solanum nigrum L.) decreased in intercropping compared to sole cropping systems. Intercropping components showed a complementary relation in consuming environmental resources including soil moisture and PAR. Since the soil temperature was lower in intercropping compared to sole cropping, lower soil moisture in intercropping cannot be resulted from higher evaporation in intercropping, but also the widespread root system in intercropping resulted in higher efficiency in soil moisture consuming. Relative yield total more than unity, showing the advantages of intercropping in environmental resources consumption. Soil covering and higher biodiversity are two main factors reducing weeds growth in intercropping because the two recent factors lower PAR availability for weeds which can reduce weed. The current research, taller maize absorbed incoming PAR and shorter cowpea intercepted PAR at ground surface, resulting in lower PAR for weeds. Higher plant populations in intercropping have been reported as a main factor for reducing environmental resources availability for weeds reducing their growth.
Conclusion
The Relative yield total was more than unity, indicating the complementarity of maize and cowpea in intercropping systems for environmental resources consumption which was resulted in lower weeds growth. Thus, intercropping can be used as a non-chemical method for weeds control.

Keywords

Density; Environmental resource consumption; Relative Yield Total; Sole cropping; Weeds smothering efficiency

References

Agegnnehu, G., Ghizaw, A., and Sinebo, W. 2007. Yield performance and land use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 202-207.

Ahlawat, A., and Aharama, R. 1985. Water and nitrogen management in wheat-lentil intercropping system under late-season condition. Agricultural Science 105: 697-701.

Amosse, C., Jeuffroy, M.H., Celette, F., and David, C. 2013. Relay-intercropped forage legumes help to control weeds in organic grain production. European Journal of Agronomy 49: 158-167.

Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B.K., and Ghose, S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additiveseries experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325-332.

Bastiaans, L., Paolini, R., and Baumann, D.T. 2002. Integrated crop management: Opportunities and limitations for prevention of weed problems. In: Laar, H.H. (Eds.), EWRS 12th Symposium. EWRS, Wageningen.

Cavigelli, M.A., Hima, B.L., Hanson, J.C., Teasdale, J.R., Conklin, A.E., and Lu, Y.C. 2009. Long-term economic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Renewable Agriculture and Food System 24: 102-119.

Dela-Foente, E.B., Suarez, S.A., Lenadis, A.E., and Poggio, S.L. 2014. Intercropping sunflower and soybean in intensive farming systems: Evaluating yield advantage and effect on weed and insect assemblages. Njas-Wagen Journal of Life Science. In press.

Demden, F.H., and Liewellyn, R.S. 2006. No tillage adoption decision in south Australian copping and the role of weed management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agricultue 46: 563-569.

Eskandari, H., and Ghanbari, A. 2010. Influence of different intercropping pattern of corn (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna sinensis) on light interception, forage yield and weed biomass. Iranian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science 1(20): 49-57. (In Persian with English Summary)

Eskandari, H., and Ghanbari, A. 2011. Evaluation of competition and complementarity of corn (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna sinensis) intercropping for nutrient consumption. Iranian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science 2(21): 67-75. (In Persian with English Summary)

Ghanbari, A., Ghadiri, A., and Jokar, M. 2006. Evaluation of maize and cucumber intercropping on weed control. Iranian Journal of Research in Agronomy and Horticulture 73: 193-199. (In Persian)

Ghanbari-Bonjar, A., and Lee, H. 2002. Intercropped field beans (Vicia faba) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) for whole crop forage: Effect of nitrogen on forage yield and quality. Agricultural Science 38: 311-315.

Ghanbari-Bonjar, H. 2000. Intercropped wheat (Triticum aestivum) and bean as a low-input forage. Wye College. University of London. PhD dissertation.

Hamzei, J., and Seyedi, M. 2013. Effect of intercropped barley on weed suppression in chickpea-barley intercropping system. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production 4(5): 884-891.

Holander, N.G., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2007. Clover as a cover crop for weed suppression in an intercropping design I. Characteristics of several clover species. European Journal of Agronomy 26: 92-103.

Gherekhloo, J., Noroozi, S., Mazaheri, D., Ghanbari, A., Ghannadha, M.R., Vidal, R.A., and De-Prado, R. 2010. Multispecies weed competition and their economic threshold on the wheat crop. Planta Daninha 28: 239-246.

Koocheki, A., and Banayan-Aval, M. 1994. Pulse agronomy. Jihad-e- Daneshgahi. Mashhad 88 pp. (In Persian)

Kruidhof, H.M., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2008. Ecological weed management by cover cropping: Effects on weed growth in autumn and weed establishment in spring. Weed Research 48: 492-502.

Kropff, M.J., and Walter, H. 2000. EWRS and the challenges for weed research at the start of a new millennium. Weed Research 40: 7-10.

Midya, A., Bhattacharjee, K., Ghose, S.S., and Banik, P. 2005. Deferred seeding of blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) field on yield advantages and smothering of weeds. Jounal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191: 195-201.

Mohsen-Abadi, G., Jahansuz, M., Chaichi, M., Rahimian-Mashhadi, R., Liaghat, A., and Savaghebi-Firuzabadi, G. 2007. Evaluation of vetch and barley under different level of nitrogen fertilizer. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture 1(10): 22-31. (In Persian)

Nassiri Mahallati, M., Koocheki, A., Rezvani Moghaddam, P., and Beheshti, A. 2001. Agroecology Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Mashhad, Iran 220 pp.

Ofori, F., and Stern, W. 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping system, Advance in Agronomy 41: 41-90.

Peter, A., Jolliff, E., and Fredrick, M. 1999. Competition and productivity by intercrop maize and cowpeas: Some properties of productive intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 132: 425-435.

Poggio, S.L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 109: 48-58.

Poggio, S.L., Satorre, E.H., and Dela-Fuente, E.B. 2004. Structure of weed com- munities occurring in pea and wheat crops in the Rolling Pampa (Argentina). Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 103: 225-235.

Rahaii, M., Dahmardeh, M., Khammari, I., and Mousavi Nik, S.M. 2016. Evaluation of the effects of density and weeds control on corn (Zea mays L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) intercropping by competition indices. Journal of Agroecology 7(4): 473-484. (In Persian with English Summary)

Ronald, M., and Charles, K. 2012. Weed suppression and component crop response in maize/pumpkin intercropping systems in Zimbabwe. Journal of Agricultural Science 4(7): 231-236.

Rostami, L., Mondani, F., Khorramdel, S., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2009. Effect of different planting density of maize and bean intercropping on crop yield and weeds population. Iranian Journal of Weed Research 1(2): 37-51. (In Persian)

Rezvani Moghaddam, P., Raoofi, M., Rashed-Mohasel, M., and Moradi, R. 2009. Evaluation of different planting composition and weed control in vetch and nigella intercropping. Journal of Agroecology 1(1): 65-79. (In Persian)

Seyedi, M., Hamzeie, J., Ahmadvand, G., and Abutalebian, M.A. 2012. Evaluation of weed control possibility and crop production in pea and barley intercropping. Iranian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science 3(22): 101-114.

Shaygan, M., Mazaheri, D., Rahimian-Mashhadi, H., and Payghambari, S.A. 2008. Effect of planting date and intercropping of maize and millet on their grain yield and weed control. Iranian Journal of Agronomy Science 1(10): 31-46.

Shenan, C. 2008. Biotic interaction, ecological knowledge and agriculture. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society Biology Science 363: 717-739.

Shrama, R.C., and Banik, P. 2013. Baby corn-legumes intercropping system: II Weed dynamic and community structure. NJAS-Wagen Journal of Life Science 67: 11-18.

Tajbakhsh, M. 1996. Agronomy breeding and pest of corn. Ahrar. Tabriz, Iran 75 pp. (In Persian)

Vandermeer, J.H., Lawrence, D., Symstad, A., and Hobbie, S.E. 2002. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems, in: M. Loreau, S. Naeem, Inchausti (Eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, Synthesis and Perspectives, 19, Oxford University Press. Oxford p. 221-236.

Wei, D., Liping, C., Zhijun, M., Guangwei, W., and Ruirui, Z. 2010. Review of non-chemical weed management for green agriculture. Agriculture and Biology Engineering 3: 52-60.

Willey, R. 1990. Resource use in intercropping systems. Journal of Agricultural Water Management 17: 215-231.

Yousef Nia, M., Banayan Aval, M., and Khorramdel, S. 2015. Evaluation of radiation use and interception of fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum L.) and dill (Anethum graveolens L.) intercropping canopy. Journal of Agroecology 7(3): 412-124. (In Persian with English Summary)

Yuan-Quan, C., Peng, S., Chen, L., and Xue-peng, S. 2012. Xanthium suppression under maize-sunflower intercropping system. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 11(6): 1026-1037.