اثر نوع و مقادیر متفاوت کود نیتروژن بر عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد کلزا (.Brassica napus L) رقم هایولا 50 و نخود (.Cicer arietinum L) محلی سفید و نسبت برابری زمین در کشت مخلوط
محورهای موضوعی :
اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی
صمد رضایت
1
,
محمدرحیم اوجی
2
,
فرهاد مهاجری
3
,
مهدی مدن دوست
4
1 - گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد فسا، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، فسا، ایران
2 - گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد فسا، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، فسا، ایران
3 - گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد فسا، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، فسا، ایران
4 - گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد فسا، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، فسا، ایران
تاریخ دریافت : 1399/09/22
تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/02/29
تاریخ انتشار : 1401/05/01
کلید واژه:
کشت مخلوط,
نسبت برابری زمین,
اوره,
سولفات آمونیوم,
چکیده مقاله :
در سال‌های اخیر توجه محققین بیش از پیش به حفظ ثبات و باروری نظام‌های تولید کشاورزی معطـوف شـده و یکی از راهکارهای افزایش ثبات، ایجاد تنوع از طریـق بـه کـارگیری نظام‌های چندکشتی است. به منظور بررسی عملکرد کلزا و نخود در نسبت‌های مختلف کشت آزمایشی در سال زراعی 1398-1397 به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در مزرعه تحقیقاتی منطقه دستجه فسا انجام شد. فاکتورهای مورد بررسی شامل نسبت کاشت نخود و کلزا در 5 سطح: 0-100، 25-75، 50-50، 75-25 و 100-0 به ترتیب نخود- کلزا و نوع و مقدار کودهای نیتروژنه در 6 سطح شامل 140، 120 و 100 کیلوگرم در هکتار نیتروژن خالص از منبع اوره، 140، 120 و 100 کیلوگرم در هکتار نیتروژن خالص از منبع سولفات آمونیوم بودند. نتایج نشان داد که نسبت‌های مختلف کاشت اثر معنی‌داری بر عملکرد کلزا و نخود داشتند. افزایش نسبت نخود در کشت مخلوط با کلزا و همچنین کلزا در کشت مخلوط با نخود باعث کاهش معنی‌دار عملکرد در مقایسه با کشت خالص آنها شد. بیشترین عملکرد کلزا و نخود به ترتیب با 2240/1 کیلوگرم در هکتار و 2155/75 کیلوگرم در هکتار در کشت خالص کلزا و نخود و کمترین عملکرد کلزا و نخود به ترتیب با میانگین 1548/06 و 1187/3 کیلوگرم در هکتار به ترتیب در نسبت کاشت 25-75 و 75-25 (کلزا-نخود) به دست آمد. در مقایسه‌ی سولفات آمونیوم و اوره جهت افزایش عملکرد کلزا نتایج نشان داد که سولفات آمونیوم بیشتر از اوره عملکرد کلزا را افزایش داده است. نسبت برابری زمین در تمامی نسبت‌های کاشت مخلوط تحت سطوح مختلف کود نیتروژن نسبت به تک کشتی افزایش داشت (LER>1).
چکیده انگلیسی:
In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused on maintaining the stability and fertility of agricultural production systems. One of the ways to increase stability is to create diversity through the use of multi-culture systems. In order to investigate the yield of Canola and Chickpeas in different cultivation ratios with different types and amounts of nitrogen fertilizer in Fasa region, an experiment was performed on 2018-2019 as factorial in complete randomized block design with three replications in the research farm of Dastjeh, Fasa region. Factors included the ratio of planting peas and canola in 5 levels: 0-100, 25-75, 50-50, 75-25 and 100-0, respectively, pea-canola and type and the amount of nitrogen fertilizers at 6 levels including urea 140 kg.ha-1 urea 120 kg ha-1, urea 100 kg ha-1, ammonium sulfate 140 kg.ha-1, ammonium sulfate 120 kg.ha-1, sulfate Ammonium 100 kg.ha1. The results showed that different planting ratios had a significant effect on canola and pea yield. Increasing the ratio of chickpeas in mixed with canola and rapeseed in mixed with chickpea cultivation significantly reduced their yield compared to their net cultivation. The highest yield of canola and chickpeas with 2240.1 kg.ha-1 and 2155.75 kg.ha-1 in net cultivation of canola and chickpeas and the lowest yield of rapeseed and chickpeas with the average of 1548.06 and 1187.3 kg.ha-1, respectively, were obtained in Planting ratios of 25-75 and 75-25 (canola-chickpeas). Comparing ammonium sulfate and urea to increase canola yield, the results showed that ammonium sulfate increased canola yield more than urea. The ratio of land equivalent ratio (LER) in all mixed planting ratios under different levels of nitrogen fertilizer increased compared to a single cropping (LER> 1).
منابع و مأخذ:
Anonymous, 2018. Agricultural Jihad statistics. Agriculture -Jihad Ministry Press. 90 pp.
Anjum, M.M., M.M. Zahir Afridi., K. Owais Iqbal Akhtar, S.H. Kamran Khan, and M. Zahid. 2016. Foliar spray of ammonium sulphate on yield and yield components of canola. International Journal of Current Trends in Pharmacobiology and Medical Sciences. 1(1): 56-60.
Baumann, D.T., M.J. Kropff, and L. Bastiaans. 2000. Intercropping leeks to suppress weeds. Weed Research. 40: 359- 374.
Banik, B., A. Midya, B.K. Sarkar, and S.S. Ghose. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy. 24: 325-332.
Bedoussac, L., and E. Justes. 2010. Dynamic analysis of competition and complementarity for light and N use to understand the yield and the protein content of a durum wheat–winter pea intercrop. Plant and Soil. 330: 37-54.
Fletcher A. L., J. A. Kirkegaard., M.B. Peoples., M. J. Robertson., J. Whish., and A. D. Swan .2016. Prospects to utilise intercrops and crop variety mixtures in mechanised, rain-fed, temperate cropping systems. Crop and Pasture Science. 67: 1252-1267.
Hatcher, P.E., and B. Melander. 2003. Combining physical, cultural and biological methods prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research. 43: 303-322.
Jahani, M., A. Koocheki, and M. Nassiri Mahallati. 2008. Comparison of different intercropping arrangements of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 6(1): 67-78. (In Persian).
Khan, , R. Khan, A. Wahab, and A. Rashid. 2005. Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of chickpea, lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Pakistan Journal of Science. 42(3-4): 1-3.
Klindt Andersen, M., H. Hauggaard-Nielsen, J. Weiner, and E. Steen Jensen. 2007. Competitive dynamics in two- and three-component intercrops. Journal of Applied Ecology. 44: 545-551.
Kumar, A., and R.P. Singh. 2009. Production potential and economic returns of gram and mustard intercropping system under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 32(3): 258-260.
Lithourgidis, A.S., D.N. Vlachostergios, C.A. Dordasc, and C.A. Damalas. 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy. 34: 287-294.
Mahfouz, H., and E.A. Migawer .2004. Effect of intercropping, weed control treatment and their interaction on yield and its attributes of chickpea and canola. Egyptian Journal of Applied Science. 19(4): 84-101.
Manjith Kumar, B.R., M. Chidenand, P.M. Mansur, and S.C. Salimath. 2009. Influence of different row proportions on yield components and yield of rabi crops under different intercropping systems. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 22(5): 1087-1089.
Mollaei, M., A.S. Fathi., G. Nouri-Ganbalani., M. hasanpour, and A. Golizadeh. 2021. Effects of strip intercropping of canola with faba bean, field pea, garlic, or wheat on control of cabbage aphid and crop yield. Plant Protection science. 57: 59–65.
Park, S.E., L.R. Benjamin, and A.R. Watkinson. 2002. Comparing biological productivity in cropping system a competition approach. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39: 416-426.
Rtkhe, G.W., T. Bhrens, and W. Diepenbrock. 2006. Integrated nitrogen management strategies to improve seed yield, oil content and nitrogen efficiency of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus): A review of Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment. 117: 80-108.
Singh Rajesh, K., H. Kumar, and K. Singh Amitesh. 2010. Brassica based intercropping systems - A Review of Agriculture Sciences. 31(4): 6- 11.
Soon, Y.K., K.N. Harker, and G.W. Clayton. 2004. Plant competition effects on the nitrogen economy of field pea and the subsequent crop. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 68: 552-557.
Tahir, M., M.A. Malik, A. Tanveer, and R. Ahmad. 2003. Competition functions of different canola-based intercropping systems. Asian Journal of Plant Science. 2(1): 9-11.
Zulfiqar, A., M. Asghar Malik, and M.A. Cheema. 2000. Studies on determining a suitable canola – wheat intercropping pattern. International Journal of Agricultural Biology. 2(1): 42-44.
_||_
Anonymous, 2018. Agricultural Jihad statistics. Agriculture -Jihad Ministry Press. 90 pp.
Anjum, M.M., M.M. Zahir Afridi., K. Owais Iqbal Akhtar, S.H. Kamran Khan, and M. Zahid. 2016. Foliar spray of ammonium sulphate on yield and yield components of canola. International Journal of Current Trends in Pharmacobiology and Medical Sciences. 1(1): 56-60.
Baumann, D.T., M.J. Kropff, and L. Bastiaans. 2000. Intercropping leeks to suppress weeds. Weed Research. 40: 359- 374.
Banik, B., A. Midya, B.K. Sarkar, and S.S. Ghose. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy. 24: 325-332.
Bedoussac, L., and E. Justes. 2010. Dynamic analysis of competition and complementarity for light and N use to understand the yield and the protein content of a durum wheat–winter pea intercrop. Plant and Soil. 330: 37-54.
Fletcher A. L., J. A. Kirkegaard., M.B. Peoples., M. J. Robertson., J. Whish., and A. D. Swan .2016. Prospects to utilise intercrops and crop variety mixtures in mechanised, rain-fed, temperate cropping systems. Crop and Pasture Science. 67: 1252-1267.
Hatcher, P.E., and B. Melander. 2003. Combining physical, cultural and biological methods prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research. 43: 303-322.
Jahani, M., A. Koocheki, and M. Nassiri Mahallati. 2008. Comparison of different intercropping arrangements of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 6(1): 67-78. (In Persian).
Khan, , R. Khan, A. Wahab, and A. Rashid. 2005. Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of chickpea, lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Pakistan Journal of Science. 42(3-4): 1-3.
Klindt Andersen, M., H. Hauggaard-Nielsen, J. Weiner, and E. Steen Jensen. 2007. Competitive dynamics in two- and three-component intercrops. Journal of Applied Ecology. 44: 545-551.
Kumar, A., and R.P. Singh. 2009. Production potential and economic returns of gram and mustard intercropping system under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 32(3): 258-260.
Lithourgidis, A.S., D.N. Vlachostergios, C.A. Dordasc, and C.A. Damalas. 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy. 34: 287-294.
Mahfouz, H., and E.A. Migawer .2004. Effect of intercropping, weed control treatment and their interaction on yield and its attributes of chickpea and canola. Egyptian Journal of Applied Science. 19(4): 84-101.
Manjith Kumar, B.R., M. Chidenand, P.M. Mansur, and S.C. Salimath. 2009. Influence of different row proportions on yield components and yield of rabi crops under different intercropping systems. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 22(5): 1087-1089.
Mollaei, M., A.S. Fathi., G. Nouri-Ganbalani., M. hasanpour, and A. Golizadeh. 2021. Effects of strip intercropping of canola with faba bean, field pea, garlic, or wheat on control of cabbage aphid and crop yield. Plant Protection science. 57: 59–65.
Park, S.E., L.R. Benjamin, and A.R. Watkinson. 2002. Comparing biological productivity in cropping system a competition approach. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39: 416-426.
Rtkhe, G.W., T. Bhrens, and W. Diepenbrock. 2006. Integrated nitrogen management strategies to improve seed yield, oil content and nitrogen efficiency of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus): A review of Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment. 117: 80-108.
Singh Rajesh, K., H. Kumar, and K. Singh Amitesh. 2010. Brassica based intercropping systems - A Review of Agriculture Sciences. 31(4): 6- 11.
Soon, Y.K., K.N. Harker, and G.W. Clayton. 2004. Plant competition effects on the nitrogen economy of field pea and the subsequent crop. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 68: 552-557.
Tahir, M., M.A. Malik, A. Tanveer, and R. Ahmad. 2003. Competition functions of different canola-based intercropping systems. Asian Journal of Plant Science. 2(1): 9-11.
Zulfiqar, A., M. Asghar Malik, and M.A. Cheema. 2000. Studies on determining a suitable canola – wheat intercropping pattern. International Journal of Agricultural Biology. 2(1): 42-44.
