بررسی اکوفیزیولوژیک کشت مخلوط ذرت (.Zea mays L) و لوبیا چشم بلبلی (Vigna unguiculata L.) تحت تأثیر کودهای زیستی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 زابل دانشگاه زابل گروه زراعت

2 دانشیار گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل، زابل، ایران

3 استاد گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل، زابل، ایران

4 استادیار مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان لرستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، خرم‌آباد، ایران

چکیده

به­منظور بررسی تأثیر مدیریت سیستم‌های مختلف کشت مخلوط ذرت سینگل کراس 640 و لوبیا چشم بلبلی رقم 29005 با استفاده از کودهای زیستی در کشت راهرویی، آزمایشی به­صورت کرت‌های خرد شده در قالب طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی در سال 1395 در استان لرستان، شهرستان الشتر اجرا گردید. عامل اصلی شامل نسبت‌های کاشت گیاهان: تک کشتی ذرت (M1)، 75 درصد ذرت + 25 درصد لوبیا (M2)، 50 درصد ذرت + 50 درصد لوبیا (M3)، 25 درصد ذرت + 75 درصد لوبیا (M4) و تک کشتی لوبیا (M5)، و عامل فرعی شامل مصرف کودهای زیستی: تلقیح بذر با باکتری ازتوباکتر و آزوسپریلیوم به­میزان 100 (B1) و 200 (B2) گرم در هکتار و بدون تلقیح بذر با باکتری ازتوباکتر و آزوسپریلیوم (B3) بودند. نتایج نشان داد که عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد ذرت و لوبیا چشم بلبلی به­طور معنی‌داری تحت تأثیر نسبت‌های کاشت و مصرف کودهای زیستی قرار گرفتند. ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﮑﺮد ذرت (350/11 ﮐﯿﻠﻮﮔﺮم در ﻫﮑﺘﺎر) و ﻟﻮﺑﯿﺎ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺑﻠﺒﻠﯽ (250/3 ﮐﯿﻠﻮﮔﺮم در ﻫﮑﺘﺎر) در تیمار 75 درصد ذرت + 25 درصد ﻟﻮﺑﯿﺎ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺑﻠﺒﻠﯽ ﺑﻪ‌دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ. در ﺑﯿﻦ ﺗﯿﻤﺎرﻫﺎی ﮐﻮدی ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﮑﺮد ذرت (850/11 ﮐﯿﻠﻮﮔﺮم در ﻫﮑﺘﺎر) و ﻟﻮﺑﯿﺎ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺑﻠﺒﻠﯽ (450/3 ﮐﯿﻠﻮﮔﺮم در ﻫﮑﺘﺎر) در تیمار تلقیح بذر با 200 گرم باکتری در هکتار حاصل شد. با محاسبه نسبت برابری زمین (LER) ملاحظه گردید که کشت مخلوط جهت حصول حداکثر عملکرد، این دو گیاه با نسبت کاشت (75 درصد ذرت + 25 درصد لوبیا) با میانگین 55/1 بیشترین مقدار را داشت که نشان­دهنده سودمندی کشت مخلوط نسبت به کشت خالص این دو گیاه بود. با توجه به نتایج حاصل، امکان حصول عملکرد دانه و زیستی بالا در کشت مخلوط نسبت به تک کشتی آنها فراهم بوده و بهترین تیمار 75 درصد ذرت + 25 درصد لوبیاچشم بلبلی و تلقیح بذر با 200 گرم باکتری در هکتار می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Ecophysiological Investigation of Intercropping of Maize (Zea mays L.) and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) under the Influence of Biofertilizers

نویسندگان [English]

  • auob amiri 1
  • Mahmood Ramrodi 2
  • Mohammad Galavi 3
  • Masoud Rafiee 4
1 Zabol University of Zabol Department of Agriculture
2 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Lorestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Khorram Abad, Iran
چکیده [English]

To study the management of different systems of maize (Zea mays) and cow pea (Vigna unguiculata) intercropping affected by biofertilizers in alley cropping, a split plot experiment based on a randomized complete blocks design was conducted in 2016 in Aleshtar city, Lorestan province. The main factor consisted of plant cropping ratios: single cropping of maize (M1), 75% maize + 25% vigna (M2), 50% maize + 50% vigna (M3), 25% maize + 75% vigna (M4), and single cropping of vigna (M5) and the second factor of different combination of biofertilizer consumptions: seed inoculation with 100 g.ha-1 azetobacteria and azospirilum (B1), seed inoculation with 200 g.ha-1 azetobacteria and azospirilum (B2) and without seed inoculation (B3). Results showed that the maize and cowpea yields and their components were influenced by crops and biofertilizer ratios significantly. Highest maize and vigna yields (11350 and 3250 kg.ha-1 respectively) were obtained by 75% maize + 25% vigna treatment. The highest yields of maize and vigna (11850 kg and 3450 kg.ha-1 respectively) were obtained by seed inoculation with 200 g.ha-1 bacteria. The highest land equivalent ratio (LER) with an average of 1.55 was observed with cropping ratio of 75% maize + 25% vigna. This indicates the usefulness of intercropping compared with single croppings of these two plants. It can be concluded that the best treatment in this study was 75% maize+ 25% vigna intercropping and seed inoculation with 200 g.ha-1 bacteria.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Azetobacteria
  • Azospirilum
  • Intercropping usefulness
  • land equivalent ratio
  • Planting ratio
· Abdzad Gohari, A., A. Amiri, M. Porhelme Gohari, and Z. Babaei Bazkiaei. 2010. Effect of nitrogen and potassium on yield and traits of cowpea in rainfed conditions. Journal of Research in Crop Science. 3(10): 73-84. (In Persian).
· Ahmad, F.E., and A.S.H. Suliman. 2010. Effect of water stress applied at different stages of growth on seed yield and water-use efficiency of cowpea. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America. 1(4): 534-540.
· Ahmad, M., Z.A. Zahir, H.N. Asghar, and M. Arshad. 2012. The combined application of rhizobial strains and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria improves growth and productivity of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) under salt-stressed conditions. Annals of Microbiology. 62: 1321-1330.
· Alizadeh Moradi, M., M. Ramroudi, and M.R. Asgharipour. 2018. Response of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) as a medicinal plant to planting date and micronutrient spraying in alley cropping. Applied Research in Field Crops. 31(2):119-134. (In Persian).
· Aminifar, J., Gh. Mohsenabadi, M.H. Bigluei, and H. Samizadeh. 2013. Effect of deficit irrigation on yield, yield components and water productivity of soybean T.215 cultivar. Journal of Water and Irrigation Engineering. 3(11): 24-34. (In Persian).
· Atiyeh, R.M., S. lee, C.A. Edwards, N.Q. Arancon, and J.D. Metzger. 2002. The influences of humic acids derived from earthworm-processed oranic wastes on plant growth. Bioresource Technology. 84: 7-14.
· Bhatti, I.H., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, M.S. Nazir, and T. Mahmood. 2006. Competitive behavior of component crops in different sesame–legume intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2: 165-167.
· Carruthers, K., B.F.Q. Prithiviraj, D. Cloutier, R.C. Martin, and D.L. Smith. 2000. Intercropping cron with soybean, lupin and forages: Yield component responses. European Journal of Agronomy. 12: 103 – 115.
· Darbaghshahi, M.N., A. Banitaba, and B. Bahari. 2012. Evaluating the possibility of saffron and chamomile mixed culture. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 7(20): 3060-3065.
· Eskandari‚ H., and A. Ghanbari. 2011. Assessment of competing and complementary components of intercropping maize (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna sinensis) in nutrient consumption. Journal of Agricultural and sustainable production. 21(2): 67-75. (In Persian).
· Garg P., A. Gupta, and S. Satya. 2005. Vermicomposting of different type of waste using Eisenia fetida: A compelementary study. Bioresource Technology. 97-391-395.
· Ghalavand, A., Kh. Mohammadi, M. Aghaalikhani, and Y. Sohrabi. 2009. Effect of organic, biological and chemical fertilizers on yield and quality of pea. Journal of Soil and Water Science. 19(2): 213-234. (In Persian).
· Ghosh, P.K., K.K. Ajay, M.C. Bandyopadhyay, K.G. Manna, A.K. Mandal, and K.M. Hati. 2004. Comparative effectiveness of cattle manure, poultry manure, phosphocompost and fertilizer-NPK on three cropping system in vertisols of semi-arid tropics. II. Dry matter yield, nodulation, chlorophyll content and enzyme activity. Bioresource Technology. 95: 85–93.
· Ghosh, P.K., M.C. Manna, K.K. Bandyopadhyay, A.K. Ajay, R.H. Tripathi, K.M. Wanjari, A.K. Hati, C.L. Misra, and A. Acharya Subba Rao. 2006. Interspecific interaction and nutrient use in soybean/sorghum intercropping system. Agronomy Journal. 98: 1097–1108.
· Gladun, G.B. 2004. Classification principles and use of grazed forest stands in the Ukrine, Pp: 51-52. In: Mosquera-Losada, M.R., I. McAdam, and A. Rigueiro-Rodriguez. (eds). Proceedings of an International Congress on Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Management held in Lugo. CABI.UK.
· Gustave, N.M., F. Jean, L. Ois, and D. Xavier. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: Effects on growth and yield. Journal of Environmental and Experimental Botany. 64(2): 180-188.
· Hakan, G., A. Riza., S. Hikmet, and K, Behcet. 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: Biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology. 7(22): 4100-4104.
· Jamshidi, Kh., D. Mazaheri, N. Majnoun Hosseini, H. Rahimian, and A. Peyghambari. 2008. Evaluation of yield in intercropping of maize and cowpea. Pajouhsh and Sazandegi. 80: 110 – 118. (In Persian).
· Javanshir, A., F. Shekari, A. Dabbagh Mohammadi Nassab, and M. Raei. 2004. Basics of agroforesty. Zanjan University Press. (In Persian).
· Jurik, T.W., and K. Van. 2004. Microenvironment of a corn-soybean-oat strip intercrops system. Field Crops Research. 90: 335-349.
· Kader, M.A., M.H. Mian, and M.S. Hoque. 2002. Effects of azotobacter inoculant on the yield and nitrogen uptake by wheat. Online Journal of Biological Sciences. 2(4) 250-261.
· Karami Chame, S., B. Khalil-Tahmasbi, P. ShahMahmoodi, A. Abdollahi, A. Fathi, S.J. Seyed Mousavi, and S. Bahamin. 2016. Effects of salinity stress, salicylic acid and pseudomonas on the physiological characteristics and yield of seed beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Scientia Agriculturae. 14(2): 234-238.
· Kizilkaya, R. 2008. Yield response and nitrogen concentration of spring wheat inoculated with Azotobacter chroococcum strains. Ecological Engineering. 33: 150-156.
· Koocheki, A., M. Nassiri Mahalati, Y. Alizadeh, and R. Moradi. 2014. Responsesurface analysis for evaluation of competition in different densities of sesame (Sesamum indicum) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) intercropping. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 12(3): 335-342. (In Persian).
· Koocheki, A., M. Nassiri Mahallati, F. Mondani, H. Feizi, and S. Amirmoradi. 2009. Evaluation of radiation interception and use by maize and bean intercropping canopy. Journal of Agroecology. 1(1): 13-23. (In Persian).
· Manske, G.B., A. Luttger, R.K. Behi, P.G. Vlek, and M. Cimmit. 2000 Enhancement of mycorrhiza (VAW) infection, nutrient efficency and plant growth by Azotobacter chroococcum in wheat. Plant Breeding. 13: 78-83.
· Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping. Publication of Tehran University, Iran. (In Persian).
· Mazaheri, D., and M. Oveysi. 2004. Effects of intercropping of two corn varieties at various nitrogen levels. Iranian Journal of Agronomy. 35(1): 71-76. (In Persian).
· Mora, O., L. Zerega, and A. Ortiz. 1995. Evaluation of a liquid fertilizer in maize cultivation. Journal of Plant Nutrition.8: 612-625.
· Parsa, M., and A. Bagheri. 2008. Pulses. Mashhad Jihad Publications, Iran. (In Persian).
· Rezaei-Chianeh, E., A. Dabbagh Mohammadi Nassab, M.R. Shakiba, K. Ghassemi-Golezani, and S. Aharizad. 2011. Intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) at different plant population densities. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 7: 1786-1793.
· Rudresh, D.L., M.K. Shivaprakash, and R.D. Prasad. 2005. Effect of combined application of rhizobium, phosphate solubilizing bacterium and Trichoderma spp. on growth, nutrient uptake and yield of chickpea (Cicer aritenium L.). Applied Soil Ecology. 28: 139-146.
· Saban, Y., A. Mehmt, and E. Mustafa. 2007. Identification of advantages of maize –legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 32: 111- 119.
· Saiadi, V., A. Poraboqhadareh, and M. Zare. 2012. Effect of seed pretreatment levels 2, 4-D and Azesperlium strain of bacteria on yield and yield components of mungbean. 12th Crop Science Congress. Islamic Azad University of Karaj. 14-16 September. (In Persian).
· Selosse, M.A., E. Baudoin, and P. Vandenkoornhyse. 2004. Symbiotic microorganisms, a key for ecological success and protection of plants. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 327: 639 -648.
· Shamekhe. T. 2006. Agriculturd forest. Tehran University Press. (In Persian).
· Sharma, A.K. 2003. Biofertilizer for sustainable agriculture. Agrobios Publication, India.
· Shaukat, K., S. Afrasayad, and S. Hasan. 2006. Growth responses of Helianthus annus to plant growth promoting rhizobacteria used as a biofertilizer. Journal Agricalture Research. 1: 573-581. (In Persian).
· Sheri, M., J. Strydhorst, R. King, K.J. Lopetinsky, and K. Neil Harker. 2008. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupine, or field pea. Agronomy Journal. 100: 182- 190.
· Shingo, M., and Y. Makoto. 2000. The status and origin of available nitrogen in soils. Plant Nutrition. 46: 139-149.
· Thobatsi, T. 2009. Growth and yield responses of maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in an intercropping system. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Pretoria 149 pp.
· Togay, N., Y. Tgay, K.M. Cimrin, and M. Turan. 2008. Effect of rhizobium inoculation, sulfur and phosphorus applications on yield, yield components and nutrient uptakes in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). African Journal Biotechnology. 7: 776-782.
· Tsubo, M., S. Walker, and E. Mukhala. 2001. Comparison of radiation use efficiency of mono-inter –cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Research. 71: 17-29.
· Valverde, A., A. Burgos, T. Fiscella, R. Rivas, E. Velázquez, C. Rodríguez-Barrueco, E. Cervantes, M. Chamber, and J.M. Igual. 2006. Differential effects of coinoculations with Pseudomonas jessenii PS06 (a phosphate-solubilizing bacterium) and Mesorhizobium ciceri C-2/2 strains on the growth and seed yield of chickpea under greenhouse and field conditions. Plant and Soil. 287: 43-50.
· van Loon, L.C. 2007. Plant responses to plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 119: 243–254.
· Xu, J. 2007. Scientists fiend why intercropping of faba bean with maize increases yields. Journal of American Society Horticulture Scisence. 136: 12-19.
· Zaady, E., A. Perevolotsky, and Y. Okon. 1993. Promotion of plant growth by inoculum with aggregated and single cell suspensions of Azospirillum brasilense. Soil Biology and Biochemietry. 25: 819-823.
Zaied, K.A., A.H. Abd El-Hady, A.E. Sharief, E.H. Ashour, and M.N. Nassef. 2007. Effect of horizontal DNA transfer in azospirillum and azotobacter strains on biological and biochemical traits of non-legume plants. Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 3(1): 73-86.