واکنش عملکرد و شاخص های کشت مخلوط گیاهان دارویی کینوا و گوار به نسبت های مختلف کشت مخلوط در شرایط اقلیمی مشهد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه علوم کشاورزی، واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: با توجه به افزایش روزافزون جمعیت و کمبود مواد غذایی، افزایش تولیدات کشاورزی بیش از پیش اهمیت می‌یابد، افزایش سطح زیرکشت و عملکرد در واحد سطح دو روش افزایش تولیدات کشاورزی محسوب می‌شود. کشت مخلوط یک روش کشاورزی کم نهاده است که هدف آن استفاده بهینه از زمین، نور و آب به منظور تولید سطح مطلوبی از گیاهان زراعی است.
مواد و روش‌ها: به منظور بررسی اثر کشت مخلوط و تراکم‌های مختلف کشت کینوا و گوار آزمایشی در شرایط اقلیمی مشهد در اردیبهشت ماه سال 1398 در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واقع در شهر گلبهار اجرا گردید. این پژوهش به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار انجام گرفت. فاکتورهای مورد آزمایش شامل (Q: کشت خالص کینوا، G: کشت خالص گوار و کینوا + گوار در نسبت ردیف 1:1، 1:2 و 2:1) و تراکم بوته (D1: 10 بوته، D2: 15 و D3: 20 بوته در متر مربع) بود. تراکم بوته از طریق تغییر در فاصله بوته ها در روی ردیف تنظیم شد. تیمارهای فاصله روی ردیف شامل: 20 سانتی متر معادل با 10 بوته در مترمربع، 15 سانتی متر، معادل با 15 بوته در مترمربع و 10 سانتی متر، معادل با 20 بوته در مترمربع بودند.
یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد که اثر اصلی و متقابل نسبت‌های کشت مخلوط و تراکم بوته بر عملکرد دانه کینوا و گوار و شاخص‌های مختلف سودمندی کشت مخلوط (نسبت برابری زمین (LER)، شاخص کاهش واقعی عملکرد گوار (AYLG) و کینوا (AYLQ)، ضریب ازدحام نسبی کینوا (RCCQ) و گوار (RCCG)، نسبت برابری درامد (IER) و سودمندی کشت مخلوط (IA)) در سطح احتمال 1 درصد معنی‌دار بود و به ترتیب برای صفات مذکور مقادیر 21/1، 08/0، 83/0، 99/2، 17/1، 80/1 و 42/0 بدست آمد.
به طوری که بالاترین عملکرد دانه کینوا و گوار به ترتیب با مقادیر 1480 و 2655 گرم در متر مربعب به ترتیب از تیمارهای کشت مخلوط کینوا و گوار با نسبت های 2ردیف کینوا و 1 ردیف گوار در تراکم 10 بوته در متر مربع و برای گوار از تیمار کشت خالص گوار از همین تراکم بوته بدست آمد. کمترین مقادیر عملکرد دانه کینوا و گوار نیز با میانگین 115 و 269 گرم در متر مربع از تراکم کشت 20 بوته در متر مربع و از نسبت کشت مخلوط دو ردیف کینوا و 1 دریف گوار بدست آمد.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان داد که بیشترین میزان LER کینوا و کل مربوط به تیمار دو ردیف کینوا و یک ردیف گوار در تراکم 15 بوته در مترمربع بود. برای گیاه گوار میزان LER در همه تیمارهای مورد مطالعه، کمتر از یک بود. میزان LER کل در تیمار 2G:1Q در هر سه تراکم مورد مطالعه کمتر از یک بود که نشان می دهد افزایش سهم گوار در میزان ترکیب ، منجر به کاهش LER کل شد. این امر ممکن است به دلیل عملکرد بسیار کم دانه گوار در تیمار 2G:1Q باشد. در بقیه تیمارهای مورد مطالعه، میزان LER بالاتر از یک بود، که سودمندی کشت مخلوط نسبت به کشت خالص را نشان می‌دهد. بنابر نتایج بدست آمده تراکم کشت 10 بوته در متر مربع بهترین تراکم کشت و نسبت کشت مخلوط 2 دریف کینوا و یک ردیف گوار بهترین تیمار در این تحیق بدست آمد که می‌توان این ترکیب کاشت را به کشاورزان توصیه نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Yield response and Intercropping Index of Quinoa and Guar medicinal plants to different ratios of intercropping in Mashhad condition

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sahar araghian
  • Reza Sadrabadi Haghighi
  • mohsen ghasemi
  • Alireza Sohani darban
Ph.D. Student of Agronomy, Department of Agricultural Science, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives:
Due to the increasing population and food shortage, increasing agricultural production is becoming more important, increasing the area under cultivation and increasing yield per unit area are two ways to increase agricultural production. Mixed cultivation is a low-income agricultural method that aims to make optimal use of land, light and water to produce a desirable level of crops.

Materials and methods:
In order to investigate the effect of intercropping and different densities of quinoa and guar cultivation in the climatic conditions of Mashhad in May 2019 in the research farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University located in Golbahar. This factorial study was conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Factors tested included (Q: pure culture of quinoa, G: pure culture of guar and quinoa + guar in 1: 1, 1: 2 and 2: 1 row ratio) and plant density (D1: 10 plants, D2: 15 and D3: 20 plants per square meter). Plant density was adjusted by changing the distance between plants on the row. Row spacing treatments included: 20 cm equivalent to 10 plants per square meter, 15 cm, equivalent to 15 plants per square meter and 10 cm, equivalent to 20 plants per square meter.

Results:
The results showed that the main and interaction effects of intercropping ratios and plant density on quinoa and guava seed yield and different indices of intercropping usefulness (land parity ratio (LER), actual reduction yield of guava (AYLG) and quinoa (AYLQ) Quinoa (RCCQ) and Guar (RCCG), Income Equality Ratio (IER) and Mixed Cultivation Profitability (IA) were significant at the level of 1% probability and the values for the mentioned traits were obtained. 1.21, 0.08, 0.83, 2.99, 1.17, 1.80 and 0.42. respectively
So that the highest yield of quinoa and guar seeds with 1480 and 2655 g/m2, respectively, of quinoa and guar mixed cultivation treatments with ratios of 2 rows of quinoa and 1 row of guar at a density of 10 plants per square meter and for guar from culture treatment, respectively. Pure guar was obtained from the same plant density. The lowest yields of quinoa and guar seeds with an average of 115 and 269 g / m2 were obtained from the density of 20 plants per square meter and the ratio of mixed cultivation of two rows of quinoa and 1 guar gum, which is due to intra-species competition due to Increase plant density.
Conclusion:
The highest amount of quinoa LER and total was related to the treatment of two rows of quinoa and one row of guar gum at a density of 15 plants per square meter. For Guar gum, the LER level in all studied treatments was less than one. The total LER in 2G: 1Q treatment was less than one in all three densities, which indicates that increasing the share of guar in the composition, led to a decrease in total LER. This may be due to the very low yield of guar gum in 2G: 1Q treatment. In the other treatments studied, the LER level was higher than one, which indicates the usefulness of intercropping compared to pure culture. According to the results, the planting density of 10 plants per square meter was the best planting density and the ratio of mixed cultivation of 2 quinoa drives and a row of guar was the best treatment in this study, which can be recommended to farmers.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Quinoa
  • Guar
  • Intercropping
  • Plant density
  • land parity ratio
  1. Aasim, M., Umer, E.M. and Karim, A. 2008. Yield and competition indices of intercropping cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) using different planting patterns. Tarim Bilim. Derg. 14: 4. 326-333.
  2. Adolf VI, Jacobsen S.E. and Shabala S. 2013. Salt tolerance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ). Environ Exp. Bot. 92: 43-54.
  3. 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 J. Agri. Sci. 80: 3.250-253.
  4. Ahmadi, A., Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab, A., Zehtab Salmasi, S., Amini, R. and Jan Mohammadi, H. 2010. Yield evaluation and usefulness indices in intercropping of barley and vetch. J. Agric Know Sustain Prod. 20: 2. 76-87.
  5. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A. and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2010. Yield, yield components and potential weed control of intercropping bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) with sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Iran J. Field Crops Res. 7: 2. 541-553. (In Persian).
  6. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A. and Nassiri mahallati, M. 2011. Investigating of growth characteristics, yield, yield components and potential weed control in intercropping of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and vegetative sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Agroecol. 2: 3.383-397. (in Persian).
  7. Ashraf, M.Y., Akhtar, K., Sarwar, G. and Ashraf, M. 2002. Evaluation of arid and semi-aridecotypes of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) for salinity (NaCl) tolerance. J. Arid Environ. 52: 473-482.
  8. Banik, B., Midya, A., Sarkar, B.K. and Ghose, S.S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. Eur. J. Agric. 24: 325-332.
  9. Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K. and Bagchi, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row replacement series system. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 185: 9-14.
  10. Bhatnagar, P., Kaul, M. K. and Singh, J. 2007. Effect of intercropping in Kinnow based production system. Indian J. Arid Hortic. 2:15-17
  11. Bhatti, I.H., Ahmad, R., Jabbar, A., Virk, Z. A., and Aslam, M. 2008. Agro-Economic performance of mung bean intercropped in sesame under different planting patterns. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 45: 3. 25-28.
  12. Bismillah Khan , M., Asif, M., Aman, M. and Ahmad, T. 2002. Impact of Intrarow Spacing on Growth and Yield of Some Maize Cultivars. J. Res (sci), Bahand Zakariya Univ. 13:135-138.
  13. Deka, K.K., Das, M.R., Bora, P. and Mazumder, N. 2015. Effect of sowing dates and spacing on growth and yield of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) in subtropical climate of Assam, India. Indian. J. Agric. Res. 49: 3. 250-254.
  14. Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.S. and Vasilakoglou, I.B. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding rasio. Field Crop. 100: 249-256.
  15. Dua, V.K., Lal, S.S. and Govindakrishnan, P.M. 2005. Production potential and competition indices in potato French bean intercropping system in Shimla Hills. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 75: 321-323.
  16. Erazzú, L.E., González, J.A., Buedo, S.E., and Prado, F.E.. 2016. Effects of sowing density on Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa), Incidence on morphological aspects and grain yield in Var. CICA growing in Amaicha del Valle, Tucumán, Arge. Lilloa. 53: 1. 12-22.
  17. Gholipour, M. and Sharifi, P. 2018. Evaluation yield and benefit index in intercropping rate in bean and sunflower. J. plant Ecophysiol. 33. 127-137.
  18. Haghighatnia, H., Dastfal, M. and Barati, V. 2008. The effect of different crop rotation systems on wheat yield and some soil properties. Seed. Seedling Mag. 24: 2. 280-265.
  19. Jacobsen, S. E. 2003. The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food rev int. 19: 1. 167-177.
  20. Javanshir, A., Dabbagh Mohammady Nassab, A., Hamidi, A. and Gholipoor, M. 2000. Ecology of intercropping. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press. 224 p. (In Persian)
  21. Kandhro, M.N., Tunio, S.D., Memon, H.R. and Ansari, M.A. 2007. Growth and yield of sunflower under influence of mungbean intercropping. Pak J. Agric Res. 23: 9-13.
  22. Koochaki, A., Nasiri Mahallati, M., Mendney, F., Faizi, H., and Amir Moradi, Sh. 2009. Evaluation of absorption and light consumption efficiency by corn and bean mixed cultivation canopy. J. Agric Ecol, 1: 1. 23-31.
  23. Lamei Harvani, J. 2012. Technical and economical evaluation of mixed cropping lathyrus with barley and triticale under dryland conditions in Zanjan province. 2: 93-103. (In Persian)
  24. Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping. Tehran, Iran. 262 p. (in Persian)
  25. Mazaheri, D. 2008. Mixed farming. University of Tehran Press. Second edition.
  26. Meyer, R. 2010. Low-input intensification in agriculture chances for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Gaia-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc. 19: 4. 263-268.
  27. Momen Kikha, M., Khomri, A. and Frouzandeh, M. 2017. Evaluation of yield and ecophysiological aspects of mixed cultivation of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under the influence of different levels of nitrogen. J. Agric. Ecol. 9: 4. 1050-1069.
  28. Morales, R.E.J., Escalante, E.J.A., Sosa, C.L. and Volke, H.V.H. 2009. Biomass, yield and land equivalent ratio of Helianthus annus in sole crop and intercropped with Phaseolus vulgaris L. in high valleys of Mexico. Tropic. Subtrop. Agric. Ecosyst. 10: 431-439.
  29. Nakh Zari Moghaddam, A., Dehghanpour Incheh Borun, A. and Rahmi Karizki, A. 2016. The effect of nitrogen levels and cultivation ratios of alternative series on forage yield, barley, and pea competition indices. J. Crop Prod. 9: 1.199-214.
  30. Nasrallahzadeh Asl, A., Chaveshgholi, E., Valizadegan, R. and Nasrallahzadeh. V. 2012. Evaluation of mixed culture of sunflower and pinto beans by additive method. J. Agric. Knowl. Sustain Prod. 22:2.79-90.
  31. Oroka, F.O. and Omoregie, A.U. 2007. Competition in rice-cowpea intercrops as affected by nitrogen fertilization and plant population. Sci Agric (Piracicaba, Braz). 64: 621-629.
  32. Panuccio, M.R, Jacobsen, S.E., Akhtar, S.S. and Muscolo, A. 2014. Effect of saline water on seed germination and early seedling growth of the halophyte quinoa. AoB PLANTS 6: plu047.
  33. Peksen, E., and Gulumser, A. 2013. Dwarf bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) affected by planting arrangements, planting rates and relative time of sowing. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2: 290-299.
  34. Poddar1, R., Kundu, R. and Kumar, S. 2017. Assessment of chickpea-spices intercropping productivity using competitive indices under irrigated conditions of haryana. Agric. Res. 6: 3.241-247.
  35. Rezwan Bidakhti, Sh. 2004. Comparison of different cultivation compositions in maize and bean mixture. Master Thesis in Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. 124 p.
  36. Sadrabadi Haghighi, R. 1999. Effect of supplemental irrigation and cultivation of wheat interferes with hairy vetch Dryland farming in a low input system. PhD dissertation of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Sci and Res. (in Persian)
  37. Saleem, R., Umar, F. M. and Ahmed, R. 2003. Bioeconomic assessment of different sunflower based intercropping systems at different geometric configurations. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 6: 1187-1190.
  38. Sarlak, Sh. and Aghaalikhani, M. 2009. Effect of pant density and mixing ratio on crop yield in sweet corn (Zea mays var Saccharata) and mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) intercropping. Iran. J. Crop. Sci. 11: 4. 367-380. (In Persian)
  39. Saudy, H.S. and Elmetwally, I. M. 2009. Weed management under different patterns of sunflower- soybean intercropping. J. Cent Eur. Agric. 10: 41-52.
  40. Sepahvand, N.A., Tavazoa, M. and Kohbazi, M. 2010. Quinoa valuable plant for alimentary security and adaptation agricultural in Iran. 11th National Iranian Crop Science Congress. 24-26 Jul. Tehran. (In Persian)
  41. Singh, J.K. 2007. Response of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Intercropping to different row ratios and nitrogen levels under rain fed conditions of temperate Kashmir. Indian. J. Agric. 52: 36-39.
  42. Strydhorst, S.M., King, J.R., Lopetinsky, K.J. and Neil-Harker, K. 2008. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agron. J. 100: 182-190.
  43. 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 Res. 93: 1. 23-33.
  44. Wahla, I.H., Ahmad, R., Ehsanullah, Ahmad, A. and Jabbar , A. 2009. Competitive function of components crops in some barley based intercropping systems. Int. J. Agric Biol. 11: 69-72.
  45. Wang, N. Wang, F. Shock, C.C. Meng, Ch. and Qiao, L. 2020. Effects of management practice on quinoa growth, seed yield and quality. Agric. 10: 445.
  46. Werker, A. R. and. Jaggard, K. W. 1998. Dependence of sugar beet yield on light interception and evapotranspiration. Agric. For. Meteorol. 89: 229-240.
  47. Weston, L.A. 1996. Utilization of allelopathy for weed management in agroecosystems. Agric. J. 88: 860-866.
  48. Yilmaz, S., Atak, M. and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition incides in the East Mediterranean region. Turk. J. Agric. For. 32: 111-119.