اثر کشت مخلوط سیب‌زمینی (Solanum tubersum L) و کینوا (Chenopodium quinoa willd) و مدیریت علف‌هرز بر عملکرد و خصوصیات رشدی سیب‌زمینی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بیرجند، بیرجند، ایران

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

3 استادیار مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی جنوب کرمان. سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، جیرفت، ایران

چکیده

اثر کشت مخلوط افزایشی سیب‌زمینی و کینوا و مدیریت علف‌های‌هرز بر رشد و عملکرد سیب‌زمینی طی آزمایشی به‌صورت کرت‌های خرد‌ شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با چهار تکرار در دو منطقه جیرفت و کهنوج مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. تیمارهای مدیریت علف‌های‌هرز عبارت بودند از شاهد: (بدون کنترل علف‌های ‌هرز)، کاربرد علف‌کش پاراکوات (به میزان سه لیتر در هکتار) و وجین‌دستی در کرت اصلی و تیمارهای کشت مخلوط سیب‌زمینی: کینوا (5: 15، 20:5 و 5: 30 بوته در متر‌مربع) و کشت خالص سیب‌زمینی (5 بوته در متر‌مربع) در کرت‌های فرعی در نظر قرار گرفتند. بر اساس نتایج، حاصل از آزمایش، کشت مخلوط تأثیر معنی‌داری بر کاهش تراکم علف‌های هرز و افزایش ارتفاع بوته، تعداد برگ در بوته، شاخص سطح برگ، تعداد غده در بوته، عملکرد غده و عملکرد غده‌های بازارپسند داشت و با افزایش تراکم بوته کینوا در کشت مخلوط، روند افزایشی در ارتفاع بوته (1/9- 2/4 درصد)، تعداد برگ در بوته (6/16-9/7 درصد) و شاخص سطح برگ (7/12-6/5 درصد) سیب‌زمینی نسبت به تیمار کشت خالص سیب‌زمینی (شاهد) مشاهده شد. همچنین، وجین‌دستی تأثیر بیشتری بر کاهش تراکم علف‌های ‌هرز (1/16 درصد) و افزایش تعداد برگ (7/3 درصد)، تعداد غده (4/9 درصد)، عملکرد غده (3/6 درصد) و عملکرد بازارپسند غده سیب‌زمینی (8/9 درصد) در مقایسه با تیمار علف‌کش پاراکوات داشت. بیشترین میانگین تعداد غده در هر بوته (5/7 عدد) در کشت مخلوط با تراکم‌ 20:5 بوته در مترمربع به­دست آمد که منجر به افزایش 1/7 درصدی در این شاخص نسبت به تیمار شاهد گردید. بیشترین میزان عملکرد غده (54/4 کیلوگرم در مترمربع) و غده بازارپسند سیب‌زمینی (01/4 کیلوگرم در مترمربع) در کشت مخلوط با تراکم 20:5 بوته در مترمربع تحت وجین‌دستی علف‌هرز در کهنوج به­دست آمد که به‌ترتیب موجب افزایش 4/69 و 20 درصدی این شاخص‌ها نسبت به تیمار کشت خالص سیب‌زمینی بدون عمل وجین (شاهد) در همین منطقه گردید. در مجموع، بهترین نتایج در اثر اعمال کشت مخلوط سیب‌زمینی:کینوا با تراکم‌ 20:5 بوته در مترمربع تحت عمل وجین‌دستی علف‌هرز در کهنوج حاصل گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Potato (Solanum tubersum L.) and Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.) Intercropping and Weed Management on Yield and Quantitive Traits of Potato

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Jalali 1
  • Seyed Vahid Eslami 2
  • Sohrab Mahmoodi 2
  • Ahmad Aein 3
1 Ph.D student, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand, Iran
2 Associate professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand, Iran
3 Assistant professor, South Kerman Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Jiroft, Iran
چکیده [English]

To evaluate the additive effect of intercropping of potato and quinoa, and weed management on yield and quantitive traits of potato, this study was conducted in a split plot experiment based on randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications at Jiroft and Kahnooj regions. Weed management treatments (control, without controlling weeds), paraquat herbicide (3 liter per hectare) and manual weeding, were considered as the main plot, and additive intercropping patterns (potato: quinoa in density levels of 5:15, 5:20 and 5:30 plants.m-2) and potato sole cropping (5 plants.m-2) were assigned to sub-plots. Based on the results, intercropping cultivation had significant effects on reducing weed densities and increasing plant height, leaves number per plant, leaf area index, tuber number per plant, tuber yield and marketable tuber yield. Increased densities of quinoa in intercropping cultivation caused an enhancing trend in potato plant height (4.2-9.1 %), leaves number per plant (7.9-16.6 %) and leaf area index (5.6-12.7 %) as compared to potato sole cropping treatment (control). Manual weeding, also decreased in weed density (16.1 %), and increased leaves number per plant (3.7 %), tuber number per plant (9.4 %), tuber yield (6.3 %) and marketable tuber yield (9.8 %) in comparison to that of paraquat herbicide treatment. The highest mean tuber number (7.5 number.plant-1) was observed in the 5:20 intercroping treatment, which resulted in 7.1% increase in the tuber number as compared with the control treatment. Highest tuber yield (4.54 kg.m-2) and marketable tuber yield (4.01 kg.m-2) were also obtained with the 5:20 intercroping treatment under manual weeding at Kahnooj region, and resulted in 69.4 and 20 % increases in tuber yield and marketable tuber yield respectively, as compared with the potato sole cropping without weeding (control treatment) in this region. Generaly, the best results were obtained in potato and quinoa intercropping with density of 5:20 plants.m-2 under manual weeding at Kahnooj region

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • herbicide
  • manual weeding
  • tuber marketable
  • Tuber number
Adeniyan, O.N., S.R. Akande, M.O. Balogun, and J.O. Saka. 2007. Evaluation of crop yield of African yam bean, maize and kenaf under intercropping systems. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environment Science. 2(1): 99-102.
Ahmadvand, G., and S. Hajinia. Ecological aspects of replacement intercropping patterns of soybean (Glycine max L.) and millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Journal of Agroecology. 7(4): 485-498.
Amini, R., A. Dabbagh Mohammadi-Nasab, and S. Ghorbani Faal. 2016. Using physical, cultural and chemical methods in integrated weed management of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production. 25 (4): 105-118. (In Persian).
Anderson, R.L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agronomy Journal. 97(6): 1579-1583.
2019. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, PopulationDivision. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).
Begum, A.A., M.S.U. Bhuiya, S.M.A. Hossain, A. Khatun, S.K. Das, and M.Y. Sarker. 2016. System productivity of potato+ maize intercropping as affected by sowing date. Bangladesh Agronomy Journal. 19(2): 11-20.
Bellinder, R.R., J.J. Kirkwyland, W.W. Russel, and J.B. Colquhoun. 2000. Weed control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) yield with banded herbicides and cultivation. Weed Technology. 14: 30-35.
Bibi, S., I.A. Khan, Z. Hussain, S. Zaheer, H. Alsamadany, and Y. Alzahrani. 2020. Performance of mungbean under herbicide application and intercropping with maize. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 52(3): 873-877.
Biswas, U., A. Kundu, A. Labar, M.K. Datta, and C.K. Kundu. 2017. Bio-efficacy and phytotoxicity of 2, 4-D Dimethyl Amine 50% SL for weed control in potato and its effect on succeeding crop greengram. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(11): 1261-1267.
Ciuberkis, S., S. Bernotas, S. Raudonius, and J. Felix. 2007. Effect of weed emergence time and intervals of weed and crop competition on potato yield. Weed Technology. 21(1): 213-218.
Den Hollander, N.G., L. Bastiaans, and M.J. Kropff. 2007. Clover as a cover crop for weed suppression in an intercropping design: I. Characteristics of several clover species. European Journal of Agronomy. 26(2): 92-103.
Ghafouri, A., Zahedi, and H. Karimmojeni. 2013. Time and duration of weed interference on yield and growth characteristics of the potato furrow and drip irrigation methods. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science. 44(3): 517-528. (In Persian).
González, J.A., S.S. Eisa, S.A.E.S. Hussin, and F.E. Prado. 2015. Quinoa: an Incan crop to face global changes in agriculture. In: Murphy, K., and J. Matangiihan. Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. p 1-18.
Hatfield, J.L., and J.H. Prueger. 2015. Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather and Climate Extremes. 10: 4-10.
Jamshidi, K., D. Mazaheri, and J. Saba. 2007. An evaluation of yield in intercropping of maize and potato. Desert. 12: 105 - 111.
Javanmard, , J. Arzheh, A. Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab, and T. Ezan. 2015. Evaluation of different intercropping patterns of forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and vetch (Vicia villosa) different nitrogen fertilizer levels. Research in Field Crops. 2(2): 1-20. (In Persian).
Keyhani, A., and Saneinjad. 2015. Growth and yield response to different nitrogen levels potato plant. Journal of Crops Improvement. 17(3): 583-593. (In Persian).
Liao, X., Z. Su, G. Liu, L. Zotarelli, Y. Cui, and C. Snodgrass. 2016. Impact of soil moisture and temperature on potato production using seepage and center pivot irrigation. Agricultural Water Management. 165: 230-236.
Liebman, M., C.L. Mohler, and C.P. Staver. 2004. Ecological management of agricultural weeds. Cambridge University Press, 532 pp.
Limouchi, K. 2015. Effect of different row spacings and weed interference on tuber yield and other agricultural traits of potato at the conditions of Khuzestan province. Applied Filed Crops Researches. 28(3): 99-106.
Lithourgidis, A.S., C.A. Dordas, C.A. Damalas, and D. Vlachostergios. 2011. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 5(4): 396-410.
Lowry, C.J., and R.G. Smith. 2018. Weed control through crop plant manipulations. In: Jabran, K., and B.S. Chauhan, Non-Chemical Weed Control. pp. 73-96.
Mobasser, H.R., S.H. Barjasteh, and A. Keshtehgar. 2018. Effect of replacement and additive intercropping on the yield of maize (Zea mays ) and potatoes (Solanuum tuberosum L.) in the region of Nikshahr. Journal of Agroecology. 10(2): 400-415. (In Persian).
Mohammadduost Chamanabad, H.R., A. Asghari, Gh.R. Habibi, and B. Pourmorad Kaleibar. 2012. Effect of herbicides and crop residue on integrated weed control in potato. Journal of Crop Production. 4 (1): 171-178. (In Persian).
Mondani, F., F. Golzardi, G. Ahmadvand, R. Ghorbani, and R. Moradi. 2011. Influence of weed competition on potato growth, production and radiation use efficiency. Notulae Scientia Biologicae. 3(3): 42-52.
Monteiro, A., I. Henriques, and I. Moreira. 2011. Critical period for weed control in potatoes in the Huambo province (Angola). Planta Daninha. 29(2): 351-362.
Nasrollahzadeh-Asl, A., A. Dabbag Mohammadi nassab, S. Zehtab Salmasi, M. Mogaddam, and A. Javanshir. 2012. Evaluation of potato and pinto bean intercropping. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 6(2): 111-126. (In Persian).
Nyawade, S.O., N.N. Karanja, C.K.K. Gachene, H.I. Gitari, E. Schulte- Geldermann, and M. Parker. 2019. Intercropping optimizes soil temperature and increases crop water productivity and radiation use efficiency of rainfed potato. American Journal of Potato Research. 96: 457-471.
Raei, Y., S.A. Bolandnazar, and N. Dameghsi. 2011. Evaluation of common bean and potato densities effects on potato tuber yield in mono-cropping and intercropping systems. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production. 2: 131-142.
Rezvani Moghadam, P., M.R. Raoofi, M.H. Rashed Mohassel, and R. Moradi. 2009. Evaluation of sowing patterns and weed control on mung bean (Vigna radiate Wilczek), black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) intercropping system. Agroecology Journal. 1(1): 65-79. (In Persian).
Rykaczewska, K. 2015. The effect of high temperature occurring in subsequent stages of plant development on potato yield and tuber physiological defects. American Journal of Potato Research. 92: 339- 349.
Schippers, P., and M.J. Kropff. 2001. Competition for light and nitrogen among grassland species: a simulation analysis. Functional Ecology. 155-164.
Singh, C., P. Singh, and R. Singh. 2013. Modern techniques of raising field crops. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. pp. 501.
Taei-Semiromi, J., V. Mirbagheri, I. Amiri, and Z. Azami. 2017. Agro climatic suitability assessment of potato (Solanum tuberosum) winter cropping system in Kerman province. Journal of Crop Production. 10(1): 95-113. (In Persian).
Tester, M., and P. Langridge. 2010. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science. 327: 818–822.
Zimdahl, R.L. 2007. Weed-crop competition, a review. Oregon: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. 196 pp.