ارزیابی کمی و کیفی علوفه در کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) و نخود‌فرنگی (Pisum sativum L.) در شرایط دیم مراغه

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

مقاله 5، دوره 11، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 40، تیر 1398، صفحه 435-452   

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jag.v11i2.65105

نویسندگان

عبدالله جوانمرد^{* 1}؛ مصطفی امانی ماچیانی¹؛ حمدالله اسکندری²

¹گروه مهندسی تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه مراغه، ایران

²گروه علمی کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور تهران، ایران

چکیده

به­منظور بررسی کمیت و کیفیت علوفه کشت مخلوط جو (Hordeum vulgare L.) با نخود‌فرنگی (Pisum sativum L.) در شرایط دیم، آزمایشی به‌صورت فاکتوریل بر پایه طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه مراغه در سال زراعی 1394 اجرا شد. تراکم­های 100، 150، 200، 250 و 300 بوته در متر‌مربع نخود‌فرنگی به‌عنوان فاکتور اول و الگوهای کشت (کشت مخلوط 75 درصد جو+ 25 درصد نخود‌فرنگی، 50 درصد جو+ 50 درصد نخود‌فرنگی و 25 درصد جو+ 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی) به‌عنوان فاکتور دوم در نظر گرفته شد. نتایج نشان داد که عملکرد کل علوفه تحت تأثیر معنی‌دار الگوی کشت و تراکم‌های مختلف نخود‌فرنگی قرار گرفت. بیشترین (2/289 گرم بر متر‌مربع) و کمترین (1/191 گرم بر متر‌مربع) عملکرد کل علوفه خشک به‌ترتیب در تیمارهای 75 درصد جو+ 25 درصد نخود‌فرنگی و 25 درصد جو+ 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی بدست آمد. همچنین تراکم‌های 100 و 300 بوته در متر‌مربع نخود‌فرنگی بیشترین و کمترین تاثیرگذاری را بر روی عملکرد کل علوفه خشک داشتند. از لحاظ کیفیت علوفه، با افزایش نسبت جو خاکستر علوفه کاهش یافت؛ به‌طوری‌که در تیمار 75 درصد جو+ 25 درصد نخودفرنگی، میزان خاکستر علوفه نسبت به تیمارهای 75 درصد نخودفرنگی+ 25 درصد جو و 50 درصد جو+ 50 درصد نخودفرنگی به‌ترتیب 85/23 و 38/17 درصد کاهش یافت. علاوه بر این، با افزایش تراکم نخود‌فرنگی در کشت مخلوط، درصد پروتئین خام کل نیز افزایش یافت، به‌طوری‌که بیشترین درصد پروتئین خام کل به تیمارهای 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی با تراکم 300 بوته در متر‌مربع+ 25 درصد جو تعلق داشت. همچنین با افزایش تراکم نخود‌فرنگی، میزان دیواره سلولی (NDF) و دیواره سلولی بدون همی‌سلولز (ADF) علوفه کاهش معنی‌داری پیدا کرد. بیشترین نسبت برابری زمین به‌ترتیب در الگوهای 25 درصد جو+ 75 درصد نخود‌فرنگی و 50 درصد جو+ 50 درصد نخود‌فرنگی در تراکم 100 بوته در متر‌مربع نخود‌فرنگی به‌دست آمد. به‌طور‌کلی، کشت مخلوط جو با نخود‌فرنگی در تراکم‌های پایین آن با تولید علوفه مناسب از لحاظ کمی و کیفی می‌تواند جایگزین مناسبی برای آیش در شرایط دیم کشور باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

پروتئین خام؛ تراکم نخود؛ دیواره سلولی؛ خاکستر علوفه؛ عملکرد علوفه

مراجع

Aasen, A., Baron, V.S., Clayton, G.W., Dick, A.C., and McCartney, D.H. 2004. Swath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84 (4): 1051–1058.

Ahlawat, I.P.S., and Gangaiah, B. 2010. Effect of land configuration and irrigation on sole and linseed (Linum usitatissimum) intercropped chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 80: 250–253.

Amani Machiani, M., Javanmard, A., Morshedloo, M.R. and Maggi, F. 2018. Evaluation of competition, essential oil quality and quantity of peppermint intercropped with soybean. Industrial Crops and Products 111: 743-754.

AOAC, 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. p. 771.

Armstong, K.L., and Albrecht, K. A. 2008. Effect of plant density on forage yield and quality of intercropped corn and lablab bean. Crop Science 48: 814-822.

Bingol, N.T., Karsli, M.A., Yilmaz, I.H., and Bolat, D. 2007. The effects of planting time and combination on the nutrient composition and digestible dry matter yield of four mixtures of vetch varieties intercropped with barley. Journal of Veteran Animals Science 31: 297–302.

Borghi, E., Crusciol, C.A.C., Nascente, A.S., Sousa, V.V., and Martins, P.O. 2013. Sorghum grain yield, forage biomass production and revenue as affected by intercropping time. European Journal of Agronomy 51: 130-139.

Carr, P.M., Horsley, R.D., and Poland, W.W. 2004. Barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern great plains. Agronomy Journal 96: 677–684.

Chapagain, T., and Riseman, A. 2014. Barley-pea intercropping: Effects on land productivity, carbon and nitrogen transformations. Field Crops Research 166: 18-25.

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

Contreras-Govea, F.E., Muck, R.E., Armstrong, K.L., and Abrecht, K.A. 2009. Nutritive value of corn silage in mixture with climbing beans. Animal Feed Science and Technology 150: 1-8.

Daneshnia, F., Amini, A., and Chaichi, M.R. 2016. Berseem clover quality and basil essential oil yield in intercropping system under limited irrigation treatments with surfactant. Agricultural Water Management 164: 331–339.

Dawo, M.I., Wilkinson, J.M., Sanders, F.E.T., and Pilbeam, D.J. 2007. The yield and quality of fresh and ensiled plant material from intercropping maize (Zea mays) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87: 1391–1399.

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.

Eskandari, H., and Ghanbari, A. 2009. Intercropping of maize and cowpea as whole crop forage: Effect of different planting pattern on total dry matter production and maize forage quality. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj Napoca 37(2): 152-157.

FAO. 2013. Production Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org.

Ghanbari-Bonjar, A., and Lee, H. 2002. Intercropped field beans (Vicia faba L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) 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. PhD Dissertation. Wye College. University of London.

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.

Habibi, S.D., Kashani, A., Paknejad, f., Jafari, H., Jami Al-Ahmadi, M., Tookalloo, M.R., and Lamei, J. 2010. Evaluation of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth.) in pure and Mixed cropping with Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to determine the Best combination of legume and cereal for forage production. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5:169-176.

Hail, Y., Daci, M., and Tan, M. 2009. Evaluation of Annual legumes and barley as sole crops and intercrop in spring frost conditions for animal feeding. Yield and quality. Journal Animal Advance 8(7): 1337-1342.

Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70: 101–109.

Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Gooding, M., Ambus, P. Corre-Hellou, G., Crozat, Y., Dahlmann, C., Dibet, A., Von Fragstein, P., Pristeri, A., Monti, M., and Jensen, E.S. 2009. Pea–barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N2-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crops Research 113: 64–71.

He, X., Xu, M., Qiu, G.Y., and Zhou, J. 2009. Use of 15N stable isotope to quantify nitrogen transfer between mycorrhizal plants. Journal of Plant Ecology 2: 107–118.

Inal, A., Gunes, A., F. Zhang, F., and Cakmak, I. 2007. Peanut/maize intercropping induced changes in rhizosphere and nutrient concentrations in shoots. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 45: 350-356.

Jafari, A.V., Frolich, A.C., and Walsh, E.K. 2003. A note on estimation of quality in perennial rye grass by near in frared spectroscopy. Irish Journal of agriculture and Food Research 42: 293-299.

Jahanzad, E., Sadeghpour, A., Hashemi, M., and Zandvakili, O. 2011. Intercropping Millet with Soybean for Forage Yield and Quality. American Society of America, Northeastern Branch Chesapeake, MD, Abstract.

Kassam, A., and Brammer, H. 2013. Combining sustainable agricultural production with economic and environmental benefits. Geographical Journal 179: 11–18.

Kurdali, F., Sharabi, N.E., and Arslan, A. 1996. Rainfed veteh-barley mixed cropping in the Syrian semi-arid conditions. I. Nitrogen nutrition using 15N isotopic dilution. Plant and Soil 183:137-148.

Lameie-Harvani, J. 2013. Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yields, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in rain fed conditions of Zanjan province in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal 2 (29): 169-183. (In Persian with English Summary).

Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., Dhima K.V., Dordas, C.A., and Yaikoulaki M.D. 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research 99: 106-113.

Lithourgidis, A.S., and Dordas, C.A. 2010. Forage yield, growth rate, and nitrogen uptake of faba bean intercrops with wheat, barley, and rye in three seeding ratios. Crop Science 50:2148-2158.

Lithourgidis, A. S., Vlachostergios, D.N., Dordas, C.A., and Damalas, C.A. 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea-cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy 34: 287-294.

Mohsenabadi, G.R., Jahansooz, M.R., Chaichi, M.R., Rahimian Mashhadi, H., Liaghat, A.M., and Savaghebi, G.R. 2008. Evaluation of barley-vetch intercrop at different nitrogen rates. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 10: 23–31.

Naghizadeh, M., and Galavi, M. 2012. Evaluation of phosphorous biofertilizer and chemical phosphorous influence on fodder quality of corn (Zea mays L.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativa L.) intercropping. Journal of Agroecology 4(1): 52-62. (In Persian with English Summary)

Nakhzari Moghaddam, A. 2016. Effect of nitrogen and different intercropping arrangements of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) on forage yield and competitive indices. Journal of Agroecology 8(1): 47-58. (In Persian with English Summary)

Nassiri Mahallati, M., Koocheki, A., Mondani, F., Feizi, H., and Amirmoradi, S. 2015. Determination of optimal strip width in strip intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Northeast Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production 106: 343–350.

Nabati Nasaz, M., Gholipouri, A., and Mostafavi Rad, M. 2016. Evaluation of forage yield and important agronomic indices of corn as affected by intercropping systems with peanut and nitrogen rates. Journal of Agroecology 8(1): 70-81. (In Persian with English Summary)

Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., and Gholinezhad, E. 2015. Study of agronomic characteristics and advantage indices in intercropping of additive series of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Journal of Agroecology 7(3): 381-396. (In Persian with English Summary)

Ross, S.M., King, J.R., Donovan, J.T.O., and Spaner, D. 2004. Intercropping berseem clover with barley and oat cultivars for forage. Agronomy Journal 96: 1719–1729.

Sadeghpour, A., Jahanzad, E., Esmaieli, A., Hosseini M.B., and Hashemi, M. 2013. Forage yield, quality and economic benefit of intercropped barley and annual medic in semi-arid conditions: Additive series. Field Crops Research 148: 43-48.

Shakour Zadeh, A., Alizadeh, K., Pour Yousef, M., and Ghaffari, A.A. 2012. Study of density and nixed ratios on forage qualitative and quantitative yield in intercropping of barley and vetch under dryland conditions. Iranian Journal of Dry Land Farming 1: 63-74. (In Persian with English Summary)

Stolts, E., and Nadeau, E. 2014. Effect of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality, soil residual N in organically grown forage maize and faba bean. Field Crops Research 169: 21-29.

Strydhorst, S.M., King, J.R., Lopetinksy, K.J. and Harker, K.N. 2008. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agronomy Journal 100: 182–190.

Vasilakoglou, I., and Dhima, K. 2008. Forage yield and competition indices of berseem clover intercropped with barley. Agronomy Journal 100: 1749–1756.

Xu, B.C., Li, F.M., and Shan, L. 2008. Switchgrass and milkvetch intercropping under 2:1 row-replacement in semiarid region, northwest China: Aboveground biomass and water use efficiency. European Journal of Agronomy 28, 485–492.