پیامد سه‌ساله خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی و گیاه پوششی بر برخی شناسه‌های کیفیت خاک و اجزاء عملکرد ذرت

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بو علی سینا، همدان، ایران

2 گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران

3 گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران

چکیده

بهره­گیری از خاک­ورزی حفاظتی و کاشت گیاهان پوششی در چارچوب کشاورزی حفاظتی نه تنها در بلند مدت به حفظ منابع خاک و آب کمک می­کند بلکه می­تواند به پایداری تولید نیز بیانجامد. به منظور مقایسه اثر روش­های مختلف خاک­ورزی حفاظتی و گیاهان پوششی بر برخی شناسه­های کیفیت خاک و اجزاء عملکرد ذرت، یک آزمایش مزرعه­ای سه­ساله به صورت طرح فاکتوریل دو عاملی در قالب طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار اجرا شد. نظام خاک­ورزی در سه سطح (بی­خاک­ورزی، کم­خاک­ورزی و خاک­ورزی مرسوم) و گیاه پوششی در سه سطح (ماشک گل­خوشه­ای، خلر و بدون گیاه پوششی) اجرا شدند. ادوات مورد استفاده در خاک­ورزی مرسوم شامل گاوآهن برگردان­دار و دیسک، در کم­خاک­ورزی شامل گاوآهن چیزل، و در بی­خاک­ورزی صرفا از دروگر برای درو کردن گیاه پوششی استفاده شد. نمونه­برداری از خاک سطحی (15-0 سانتی متر) در سال سوم آزمایش و پس از برداشت ذرت انجام گرفت. مقدار کربن آلی کل، ذخیره کربن خاک[1]، کربن فعال[2]، شاخص مدیریت کربن[3]، تنفس پایه[4]، فسفر و پتاسیم فراهم، جرم مخصوص ظاهری، میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه­های پایدار در آب و فعالیت آنزیم فسفاتاز قلیایی تعیین شد. به­جز فسفر فراهم، سایر شناسه­های کیفیت خاک در نظام کم­خاک­ورزی، در مقایسه با خاک­ورزی مرسوم، بهبود یافت. با این حال، این دو تیمار تفاوت معنی‌داری از نظر کربن فعال، ذخیره کربن و شاخص مدیریت کربن نشان ندادند. به علاوه، کمترین مقادیر کربن آلی کل (74/0 درصد) در تیمار بی­خاک­ورزی دیده شد، که تفاوت معنی‌داری با تیمار خاک­ورزی مرسوم (83/0 درصد) نداشت. نظام کم­خاک­ورزی با افزایش میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه­های پایدار و انباشت بقایای گیاهی، در نگهداشت کربن آلی خاک موثر بود. نظام کم­خاک­ورزی در مقایسه با بی­خاک­ورزی، باعث بهبود اغلب شناسه­های کیفیت خاک شد. هر دو گیاه پوششی باعث بهبود اغلب شناسه­های کیفیت خاک، در مقایسه با شاهد شدند. هرچند گیاه ماشک، در مقایسه با خلر، به طور مؤثرتری باعث بهبود شاخص مدیریت کربن شد. ذخیره کربن در تیمار ماشک و خلر، به ترتیب 54 و 40 درصد بیشتر از تیمار بدون گیاه پوششی بود. در خاک­ورزی مرسوم، کمترین مقدار عملکرد بیولوژیک، عملکرد دانه، وزن صد دانه، وزن بلال، وزن دانه در بلال و تعداد ردیف دانه در بلال مشاهده شد. در مقابل، بیشترین مقدار عملکرد دانه، وزن صد دانه، وزن بلال و وزن دانه در بلال در تیمار بی­خاک­ورزی مشاهده شد. با این حال، تفاوت معنی­داری بین دو تیمار خاک­ورزی حفاظتی (بی­خاک­ورزی و کم­خاک­ورزی) از نظر عملکرد بیولوژیک، عملکرد دانه، وزن بلال و تعداد ردیف دانه در بلال وجود نداشت. از طرف دیگر، تأثیر گیاه پوششی بر عملکرد بیولوژیک و تعداد دانه در ردیف بلال معنی­دار بود، به طوری که بیشترین مقدار این دو صفت در تیمار ماشک گل­خوشه­ای مشاهده شد. در کل، تلفیق کم­خاک­ورزی و گیاه پوششی ماشک گل­خوشه­ای به عنوان مناسب­ترین نظام کشت از نظر بهبود شناسه­های کیفیت خاک و عملکرد ذرت در منطقه مورد مطالعه معرفی می­گردند.
 
[1]- Soil (organic) Carbon Stock
[2]- Active Carbon
[3]- Carbon Management Index
[4]- Basal Respiration

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Three-year Effects of Conservation Tillage and Cover Crop on Selected Soil Quality Indicators and Corn Yield Components

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Nael 1
  • S.S. Salehi 2
  • J. Hamzei 3
  • M. Zandi Baghche-Maryam 2
1 Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina university, Hamedan, Iran
2 Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina university, Hamedan, Iran
3 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina university, Hamedan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Conservation agriculture (CA), as a sustainable cultivation system, aims at efficient use of natural resources with least environmental impacts, while achieving food security through increasing yield and crop diversification. CA consists of three main principles: 1- reduction or elimination of mechanical soil disturbance; 2- maintaining a permanent cover of crop residues on soil; and 3- diversification of crops. However, the total area under CA in Iran is less than 5% of arable lands. In Hamedan province, CA is mostly implemented in rainfed farming. Therefore, there is a necessity to expand CA in irrigated areas. Nonetheless, a lack of sufficient technical and local knowledge about CA acts as a barrier for its expansion in irrigated lands. Despite the large body of research conducted on CA, there is no detailed information about the combined effects of cover crops and conservation tillage systems on soil functioning and corn productivity in semi-arid regions of Hamedan province. Therefore, our aim was to study three-year effects of conservation tillage practices (no tillage and minimum tillage) and cover crops (hairy vetch and grass pea) on ​​selected soil quality indicators and yield components of corn in a clay loam soil of a semi-arid region in Hamedan. 
 Materials and Methods
Combined effects of various tillage practices and cover crops on selected soil quality indicators and corn productivity were examined in a three-year experiment conducted in the research field of Bu-Ali Sina University. A factorial experiment in the basis of randomized complete block design with 3 replications and 2 factors were carried out, in which three levels of tillage practices (no tillage (NT), minimum tillage (MT), and conventional tillage (CT)), and three levels of cover crops (hairy vetch (V), grass pea (L), and no cover crop) were the treatments. Surface soil samples (0-15 cm) were collected two weeks after corn harvesting in the third year of experiment. Total organic carbon (TOC), organic carbon stock (CS), active carbon (AC), carbon management index (CMI), basal respiration (BR), alkaline phosphatase activity (APA), bulk density (BD), mean weight diameter of water-stable aggregates (MWD), and available phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) were determined. Corn yield components (including number of kernel rows per corn, number of grains per corn row, ear cob weight, hundred weight of grains, ear weight, grain weights per ear, biological yield and grain yield) were measured.
Results and Discussion
The highest TOC (0.96%), CS (18.7 ton/ha), AC (398 mg/kg), CMI (74.8), BR (0.118 mgCO2/g.d) and MWD (1.82 mm) were observed in MT treatment. However, no significant difference was detected between MT and CT in terms of AC, CS and CMI. Moreover, the lowest TOC (0.74%) was measured in NT, which showed no significant difference with CT treatment (0.83%). Reduced destruction of soil structure coupled with the increased MWD, and increased inputs of crop residues through MT, resulted to the protection of organic matter against microbial decomposition. Soil structuring, represented by BD, was improved under conservation tillage treatments (NT and MT).
Among cover crops, hairy vetch treatment demonstrated the highest TOC (1.0%), CS (19.5 ton/ha), AC (427 mg/kg), CMI (80.3) and MWD (1.73 mm). However, these indicators, except CMI, were not significantly different between the two cover crops. On the contrary, these indicators were lowest in the control (no cover crop). Moreover, AC and CMI were not significantly different between grass pea and the control. Carbon stock was increased by 54 and 40% in hairy vetch and grass pea treatments, respectively, relative to the control. In general, cover crop cultivation combined with conservation tillage practices introduced additional biomass to the soil which in turn improved soil organic matter over time and enhanced soil quality.
The lowest amounts of biological yield (1663 g/m2), grain yield (507 g/m2), hundred weight of grains 11.0 g), ear weight (91.4 g), grain weights per ear (62.9 g), and number of kernel rows per corn (13) were measured in CT system. In contrast, the highest grain yield (637 g/m2), hundred grain weight (13.6 g), ear weight (108.4 g), and grain weights per ear (81.9 g) were measured in NT treatment. However, the biological yield showed no significant difference between NT and CT. Soil quality improvement in conservation tillage treatments explains the enhancement of certain yield components. Biological yield and number of grains per row demonstrated significant difference between cover crop treatments; the maximum of biological yield (2103 g/m2) and of number of grains per row (44) was measured in hairy vetch treatment. Moreover, the lowest of biologigal yield (1589 g/m2) was observed in the control (no cover crop) treatment. 
Conclusions
All soil quality indicators, except available P, were improved under MT as compared with CT. Our three-year study revealed that among conservation tillage treatments, MT improved majority of soil quality indicators compared to NT. Therefore, minimum tillage practice seems to be more sustainable in this study area. Conservation tillage treatments (MT and NT) also enhanced corn grain yield, grain weights per ear and number of grain rows per ear compared to to the CT. Both cover crops improved most soil quality indicators. Moreover, both cover crops induced significant effect on biological yield, although hairy vetch was more effective than grass pea. As a whole, the integration of minimum tillage with hairy vetch cover crop is considered as a sustainable cropping system for the improvement of soil quality and corn yield in this area.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conservation agriculture
  • Minimum tillage
  • No tillage
  • Soil organic carbon

مراجع

  1. Adetunji, A.T., Ncube, B., Meyer, A.H., Olatunji, O.S., Mulidzi, R., & Lewu, F.B. (2021). Soil pH, nitrogen, phosphatase and urease activities in response to cover crop species, termination stage and termination method. Heliyon 7(1): e05980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05980.
  2. Afzali Gorouh, H., Naghavii, H., Rostami, M.A., & Najafinezhad, H. (2019). Effect of conservation tillage and wheat residue management in some soil properties and grain yield of corn. Iranian Journal of Soil Research 33(1): 1-11. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/ijsr.2019.119050.
  3. Ahmadnia, F., Ebadi, A., Hashemi, M., & Ghavidel, A. (2020). Investigating the short time effect of cover crops on physical and biological properties of soil. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation 26(6): 277-290. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/JWSC.2019.16172.3145.
  4. Ahmadvand, G., & Hajinia, S. (2015). The effect of cover crop and different tillage systems on soil physical properties and yield of potato. Journal of Crop Production 8(4): 163-182. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.2008739.1394.8.4.9.5.
  5. Akala, V., & Lal, R. (2001). Soil organic carbon pools and sequestration rates in reclaimed minesoils in Ohio. Journal of environmental Quality 30(6): 2098-2104. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.2098.
  6. Asadi, M.E., Feyzbakhsh, M.T., & Razzaghi, M.H. (2016). Study of silage maize yield and yield components under different managements of tillage. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation 23(3): 151-170. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22069/JWFST.2016.3191.
  7. Blair, G.J., Lefroy, R.D., & Lisle, L. (1995). Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 46(7): 1459-1466.
  8. Blake, G.R., & Hartge, K.H. (1986). Bulk density. 363–375, In: Klute A. (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Modison.
  9. Cambardella, C., & Elliott, E. (1994). Carbon and nitrogen dynamics of soil organic matter fractions from cultivated grassland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58(1): 123-130. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800010017x.
  10. Çelik, İ., Günal, H., Acir, N., Barut, Z.B., & Budak, M. (2021). Soil quality assessment to compare tillage systems in Cukurova Plain, Turkey. Soil and Tillage Research 208: 104892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104892.
  11. Congreves, K., Hooker, D., Hayes, A., Verhallen, E., & Van Eerd, L. (2017). Interaction of long-term nitrogen fertilizer application, crop rotation, and tillage system on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Plant and Soil 410(1): 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2986-y.
  12. Demir, Z., & Işık, D. (2019). Effects of cover crop treatments on some soil quality parameters and yield in a kiwifruit orchard in Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 28(9): 6988-6997.
  13. Ghaffari, M., Ahmadvand, G., Ardakani, M., Mosaddeghi, M., Yeganehehpoor, F., Gaffari, M., & Mirakhori, M. (2012). Effect of cover crop residues on some physicochemical properties of soil and emergence rate of potato. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology 21(1): 79-90. (In Persian with English abstract)
  14. Hamzei, J., & Borbor, A. (2014). Effect of different soil tillage methods and cover crops on yield and yield components of corn and some soil characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 24(3): 35-47. (In Persian with English abstract). https://sustainagriculture.tabrizu.ac.ir/article27221906f09a3231297d54566a5c904c20d2.pdf.
  15. Hiel, M.P., Barbieux, S., Pierreux, J., Olivier, C., Lobet, G., Roisin, C., Garré, S., Colinet, G., Bodson, B., & Dumont, B. (2018). Impact of crop residue management on crop production and soil chemistry after seven years of crop rotation in temperate climate, loamy soils. Peer Journal 6: e4836. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4836.
  16. Isermeyer, H. (1952). Eine einfache Methode zur Bestimmung der Bodenatmung und der Karbonate im Boden. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung, Düngung, Bodenkunde 56(1‐3): 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.19520560107.
  17. Komeili, H.R., Rezvani Moghaddam, P., Ghodsi, M., Nassiri Mahallati, M., & Jalal Kamali, M.R. (2016). Effect of different tillage methods and the rate of crop residues on yield, yield components and economic efficiency of wheat. Cereal Research 6(3): 323-337 (In Persian with English abstract)
  18. Latifi, S., Hauser, M., Raheli, H., Movahhed Moghaddam, S., Viira, A.-H., Gökcin Ozuyar, P., & Azadi, H. (2021). Impacts of organizational arrangements on conservation agriculture: insights from interpretive structural modeling in Iran. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45(1): 86-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2020.1751375.
  19. Merante, P., Dibari, C., Ferrise, R., Sánchez, B., Iglesias, A., Lesschen, J.P., Kuikman, P., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P., & Bindi, M. (2017). Adopting soil organic carbon management practices in soils of varying quality: Implications and perspectives in Europe. Soil and Tillage Research 165: 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.08.001.
  20. Nelson, D.W., & Sommers, L.E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter 961-1010 In: Sparks D.L., Page A.L., Helmke P.A., Loeppert R.H., Soltanpour P.N., Tabatabai M.A., Johnston C.T. and Sumner M.E. (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods, Modison.
  21. Nouri, A., Lee, J., Yin, X., Tyler, D.D., & Saxton, A.M. (2019). Thirty-four years of no-tillage and cover crops improve soil quality and increase cotton yield in Alfisols, Southeastern USA. Geoderma 337: 998-1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.016.
  22. Page, K.L., Dang, Y.P., & Dalal, R.C. (2020). The ability of conservation agriculture to conserve soil organic carbon and the subsequent impact on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties and yield. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00031.
  23. Palm, C., Blanco-Canquib, H., DeClerckc, F., Gaterea, L., & Grace, P. (2014). Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187: 87-105. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010.
  24. Pradhan, A., Chan, C., Roul, P.K., Halbrendt, J., & Sipes, B. (2018). Potential of conservation agriculture (CA) for climate change adaptation and food security under rainfed uplands of India: A transdisciplinary approach. Agricultural Systems 163: 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.002.
  25. Sithole, N.J., Magwaza, L.S., & Mafongoya, P.L. (2016). Conservation agriculture and its impact on soil quality and maize yield: A South African perspective. Soil and Tillage Research 162: 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.04.014.
  26. Sokolowski, A.C., McCormick, B.P., De Grazia, J., Wolski, J.E., Rodríguez, H.A., Rodríguez-Frers, E.P., Gagey, M.C., Debelis, S.P., Paladino, I.R., & Barrios, M.B. (2020). Tillage and no-tillage effects on physical and chemical properties of an Argiaquoll soil under long-term crop rotation in Buenos Aires, Argentina. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 8(2): 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.02.002.
  27. Tabatabai, M.A., & Bremner, J.M. (1969). Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil biology and Biochemistry 1(4): 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(69)90012-1.
  28. Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Verachtert, E., Castellanos-Navarrete, A., Mezzalama, M., Wall, P., Decker, J., & Sayre, K.D. (2010). Conservation agriculture, improving soil quality for sustainable production systems? 137-208, In: Lal R. and Stewart B.A. (eds) Advances in Soil Science: Food Security and Soil Quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
  29. Weil, R.R., Islam, K.R., Stine, M.A., Gruver, J.B., & Samson-Liebig, S.E. (2003). Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: A simplified method for laboratory and field use. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18(1): 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1079/AJAA200228.
  30. Yeganehpoor, F., Zehtab Salmasi, S., Abedi, G., Samadiyan, F., & Beyginiya, V. (2015). Effects of cover crops and weed management on corn yield. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 14(2): 178-181. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2014.02.001.
  31. Yin-jie, Z., Wei, G., Hao-an, L., Ji-wei, T., Ruo-nan, L., Ming-yue, L., Huai-zhi, Z., & Shao-wen, H. (2022). Effects of a decade of organic fertilizer substitution on vegetable yield and soil phosphorus pools, phosphatase activities, and the microbial community in a greenhouse vegetable production system. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 21(7): 2119–2133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63715-2.
  32. Zhao, X., Liu, S.L., Pu, C., Zhang, X.Q., Xue, J.F., Ren, Y.X., Zhao, X.L., Chen, F., Lal, R., & Zhang, H.L. (2017). Crop yields under no-till farming in China: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Agronomy 84: 67-75.
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image
آب و خاک
دوره 36، شماره 6 - شماره پیاپی 86
بهمن و اسفند 1401
صفحه 773-785

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 29 مرداد 1401
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 13 آبان 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 06 آذر 1401
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 06 آذر 1401

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار