مطالعه تأثیر بقایای چغندرقند (Beta vulgaris L.) و کلزا (Brassica napus L.) بر خصوصیات علف‌های‌هرز و عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد گیاه نخود (Cicer arietinum L.)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

مجتمع آموزش عالی شیروان

چکیده

به‌منظور بررسی اثر آللوپاتی چغندرقند و کلزا بر روی ویژگی‎های علف‌های‌هرز غالب مزرعه و گیاه نخود، آزمایشی در قالب طرح بلوک‎های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در مزرعه تحقیقاتی مجتمع آموزش عالی شیروان در سال زراعی 92-1391 انجام شد. تیمارها شامل شاهد (بدون تیمار)، بقایای کلزا (5/1‌کیلوگرم در مترمربع)، بقایای چغندرقند (5/1کیلوگرم در مترمربع)، مخلوط بقایای چغندرقند و کلزا (هر کدام 75/0کیلوگرم در مترمربع)، پاشش عصاره چغندرقند، پاشش عصاره کلزا و مخلوط پاشش عصاره چغندرقند و کلزا بود. نتایج نشان داد که ویژگی‌های مورد بررسی علف‌های‌هرز و گیاه نخود تحت تأثیر تیمارهای آزمایشی قرار گرفت، به‏طوری‌که در تیمار شاهد، تراکم (3/78بوته در مترمربع)، وزن خشک (7/2671‌گرم در مترمربع) و پوشش علف‏های‌هرز (8/69درصد درمترمربع) مشاهده شد. بیشترین تأثیر بازدارندگی بر علف‏های‌هرز توسط تیمار پاشش عصاره کلزا و بقایای چغندرقند مشاهده شد، به‌طوری‌که تیمار پاشش عصاره کلزا، تراکم و وزن خشک علف‌های‌هرز را به‌ترتیب 7/56 و 8/85‌درصد و تیمار بقایای چغندرقند پوشش علف‌های‌هرز و ارتفاع ساقه اصلی نخود را به‌ترتیب 6/52 و 6/25درصد نسبت به تیمار شاهد کاهش نشان داد. بیشترین عملکرد بیولوژیکی و عملکرد دانه نخود به‌ترتیب با 4/329 و 33/180‌گرم در متر مربع برای تیمار پاشش عصاره کلزا مشاهده گردید. همچنین بالاترین شاخص برداشت در تیمار بقایای چغندرقند با 2/59‌درصد به‌دست آمد. در مجموع نتابج نشان داد که تیمار پاشش عصاره آبی کلزا، با کنترل مطلوب و موثر علف‌های‌هرز و همچنین با داشتن بیشترین عملکرد نخود به‌عنوان تیمار برتر آزمایش بوده و پیشنهاد می‎گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and canola (Brassica napus) residue on weeds, yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum)

نویسندگان [English]

  • behrouz babaei nejad
  • alireza dadkhah
Complex Higher Education of Shirvan , Shirvan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Weeds have significant negative effects on agricultural ecosystems. They are responsible for the decline of crop yield because of competition with crops for water, nutrients and sunlight. Existing weed control methods are either expensive or hazardous. Heavy use of chemical herbicides in most integrated weed management systems is a major concern since it causes serious threats to the environment, public health and increase cost of crop production. Therefore, alternative strategies against weed must be developed. Allelopathy is defined as the inhibitory/stimulatory effect(s) of one plant on other plants through the release of chemical compounds into the surrounding environment. It is characterized by a reduction in plant emergence or growth, reducing their performance in the association. Allelopathy provides a relatively cheaper and environmental friendly weed control alternative. This can be considered as a possible alternative weed management strategy. A number of plants have also been known to exhibit allelopathic property on other plants. Allelopathy associated with plants due to the presence of allelochemicals such as monoterpences, phenolic and volatile compounds in their foliage. Therefore, the present study was done to develop management practices to reduce the use of agro-chemicals for sustainable agriculture. Therefore, the effects of allelopathic potential of sugar beet and canola on suppression of some weeds of chickpea farm were studied.
 
Material & Methods
A field experiment based on a randomized complete block design with four replications was carried out in a naturally weeds infested land to investigate the allelopatic effects of canola (Brassica napus L. var Ocapi) and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris Var Jolge) residues on weeds and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) at research center of Shirvan Agricultural College (37° 23¢ north latitude and 57° 54¢ east longitude and altitude of 1060 meters), North Khorasan Province, Iran. Seven treatments including I: chopped residues of canola (1.5 kg m-2), II: chopped residues of sugar beet (1.5 kg m-2) both were separately incorporated to 25 cm depth soil uniformly 20 days before sowing, III: chopped residues of canola and sugar beet mix together (0.75 kg/m2 each), IV: shoot aqueous extract of canola, V: shoot aqueous extract of sugar beetVI: mixed adequate extract of canola & sugar beet, which were separately sprayed at post emergence stage (at 7, 15 and 30 days after sowing) and VII: without any residues and spraying as control. For preparation of aqueous extract, chopped shade dried residues of canola and sugar beet were separately ground into fine powder (using an electric mill). One hundred g of ground tissue of each of the tested species was placed in a 2 L Erlenmeyer flask and 1 L distilled water was added and left for 48 h at room temperature. The mixtures were then filtered through a double layer of cheese cloth followed by Whatman No.1 filter paper using a vacuum pump. Water extracts were applied between rows at the rate of 100 ml per square meter twice at 7 and 14 days after sowing (DAS) using a knapsack hand-sprayer fitted with a flat fan nozzle maintaining a pressure of 207 kpa.
 
Results & Discussion
The result of experiment showed that growth traits of weeds and chickpea plant are significantly affedted by treatments. Maximum inhibition on weed density, weed dry weight, weed coverage (%) and the hight of chieckpea plants were recorded when using sugar beet residues incorporated with soil. So weed density, weed dry weight, weed coverage and the height of chickpea plants decreased by 52.4%, 90.15, 52.6% and 25.2%, respectively, compared to control.  The highest (329.4 g m-2) and lowest (192.1 g m-2) chickpea dry weight were obtained in shoot aqueous extract of canola and shoot aqueous extract of sugar beet, respectively. The highest harvest index (59.2%) observed in plants treated with sugar beet residues. Some studies reported that allelochemicals like salt and drought stresses exhibited inhibitory effects on physiological processes that translate to growth. The effects of allelopathy on germination and plant growth may occur through a variety of mechanisms including reduced mitotic activity in roots and shoots, suppressed hormone activity, reduced rate of nutrient uptake, inhibited photosynthesis and respiration, inhibited protein formation, decreased permeability of cell membranes and/or inhibition of enzyme action. Weed cover reduction can be closely linked to slower leaf production and development of smaller leaves. It was reported that at stress condition leaf area decreases due to a combination of a decrease in cell number and in cell size. A possible reason for dry matter reduction could be the greater reduction in uptake and utillisation of mineral nutrients by plant under allelochemical stress condition. Hegab et al, (2008) found that higher concentration of allelochemical induced inhibitory effect on amylase activity in wheat seedlings. They also reported the application of allelochemicals at high concentrations decreased protein content of wheat seedlings.
 
Conclusion
The present study concludes that integrating canola and sugar beet residues has the potential to suppress weeds germination and growth. These residues can be used as an eco-friendly approach to manage weeds in chickpea fields.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Biomass
  • Chickpea
  • Chopped residues
  • Density and Weed management
1. Alboghbeish, J., Dadkhah, A.R., Khairkhah, M., and Zaremehrjordi, M. 2014. Allelopathic Effect of Wheat, Canola and Ephedra on Growth Index of Weeds and Glycine max L. Plants in Field Conditions. MSc, Thesis. Shirvan Higher Education Complex. Iran. 66pp. (In Persian with English Summary).
2. Arefiyan, M., Rabie, M., Asri, Y., and Bakhshi Khaniki, Gh. 2013. Comparison on canopy coverage estimation methods of Calligonum comosum L’Her. and Amygdalus eburnea Spach in Shahr-e-babak of Kerman (Iran). Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research 20(4): 769-782. (In Persian with English Summary).
3. Babaeinjad, B., Dadkhah, A.R., Rassam, G.A., and Ghorbanzadehnghab, M. 2014. Allelopathic effect of sugar beet, canola and ephedra on germination and growth of weed Solanum nigrum. The 1st National Conference on Stable Agriculture and Natural Resources. (In Persian with English Summary).
4. Dadkhah, A.R. 2012. Phytotoxic potential of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) to control purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Acta Agriculture Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science 46(6): 1- 6.
5. Dadkhah, A.R. 2014. Allelopathic potential of canola and sugarbeet to control weeds in soybean (Glycine max). Russian Agricultural Sciences 41(2-3): 111-114.
6. Dadkhah, A.R., and Rassam, Gh. 2016. Allelopathic potential of canola and sugarbeet to control weeds in chickpea. Indian Journal of Weed Science 47(2): 131-135.
7. De Neergard, A., and Porter, J. 2000. Allelopathy. Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science http://www.kursus.kvl.dk/sharesea/03Projects/32gamle /Project%20files/ allelopathic
8. El-Khatib, A., Hegazy, A.K., and Gala, H.K. 2004. Does allelopathy have a role in the ecology of Chenopodium murale? Annuals of Botany Fennici 41: 37-45.
9. Fenwick, G.R., Heaneg, R.K., and Mullin, W.J. 1983. Glucosinolates and their breakdown products in food and food plants. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 18: 123-301.
10. Gepts, P., and Debouck, D. 1991. Origin, domestication and evolution of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). In: A. Van Schoonhoven and O. Voysest (Eds.). Common Bean: Research for Crop Improvement. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. pp. 7-53.
11. Guenzl, W.D., Mccalla, T.M., and Norstadt, F.A. 1967. Presence and persistence of phytotoxic substance in wheat, oat, corn and sorghum residues. Agronomy Journal 59: 163-165.
12. Hegab, M.M., Khodary, S.E.A., Hammouda, O., and Ghareib, H.R. 2008. Autotoxicity of chard and its allelopathic potentiality on germination and some metabolic activities associated with growth of wheat seedlings. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(7): 884-892.
13. Hjazi, A. 2000. Allelopathy. Tehran University Press. (In Persian).
14. Hutchinson, C.M., and McGiffen, M.E. 2000. Cowpea cover crop mulch for weed control in desert pepper production. HortScience 35: 196-198.
15. Jahani, H., Dadkhah, A.R., and Rassam, G.A. 2015. Allelopathic effect of sugar beet, sunfloewer and cotton on growth index of weeds and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) plants in field conditions. MSc, Thesis. Shirvan Higher Education Complex. Iran. 73pp. (In Persian with English Summary).
16. Koocheki, A., and Sarmadnia, G.H. 1999. Crop Physiology. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press. (In Persian).
17. Mallek. S., Partner, T.S., and Stapleton, J. 2007. Interaction effects of Allium ssp. Residues concentrations and soil temperature on seed germination of four weedy plant species. Applied Soil Ecology 37: 233-239.
18. Menan, H., Ngouajio, M., Isik, D., and Kaya, E. 2006. Effect of alternative management systems on weed populations in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.). Crop Protection 25: 835-841.
19. Petersen, J., Belz, R., Walker, F., and Hurle, K. 2001. Weed suppression by release of isothiocyanates from Turin rape mulch. Agronomy Journal 93: 37- 43.
20. Rashdmohasel, M.H, and Moosavi, K. 2006. Weed Management Principles. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press. 545pp. (In Persian).
21. Rice, E.L. (1984). Allelopathy. Academic Press, 2nd Edition. New York. pp. 368.
22. Sadeghi Poor, A., Ghafari Khalij, H., and Monem, R. 2004. Effect of plant density on yield and yield components limited growth figures and unlimited growth of red beans. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 149-159. (In Persian with English Summary).
23. Seyed Sharifi, R., Farzaneh, S., and Seyed Sharifi, R. 2007. Comparison of chemical control and allelopathic effect of weeds in chickpea under rainfed conditions. Iran Journal Biology 20(4): 334-343. (In Persian with English Summary).
24. Teasdale, J.R., Beste, C.E., and Potts, W.E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crops residue. Weed Sciences 39: 195-199.
25. Xuan, T.D., Tawata, S., Khanh, T.D., and Chung, I.M. 2005. Biological control of weeds andplant pathogens in paddy fields by exploiting plant allelopathy. An Overview. Crop Protection 24: 197-206.
26. Zand, A., Rahimyanmashhadi, H., Koochaki, A., Khalghani, J., Moosavi, K., and Ramazani, K. 2004. Weeds Ecology. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press. 558pp. (In Persian).