پاسخ برخی شاخص‌های کیفیت خاک و عملکرد محصول به مدیریت تلفیقی خاک‌ورزی ‌و گیاه پوششی در زراعت کدو تخمه کاغذی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• اسماعیل اسفندیاری اخلاص ¹
• محسن نائل ¹
• محسن شکل آبادی ²
• جواد حمزه ئی ²
• علی اکبر صفری سنجانی ²

¹ دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

² دانشگاه بو علی سینا، همدان

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v32i1.66383

چکیده

به منظور بررسی اثر میان‌مدت سیستم‌های مختلف خاک‌ورزی و گیاه پوششی خلر بر کیفیت خاک و علمکرد کدو، آزمایشی در قالب فاکتوریل بر پایه طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در یک دوره‌ی چهار ساله (1393-1390) در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا همدان اجرا گردید. فاکتور خاک‌ورزی در سه سطح شامل NT: بدون خاک‌ورزی (کاشت مستقیم بذر در زمین زراعی)، MT: خاک‌ورزی کمینه (شخم با چیزل + دیسک) و CT: خاک‌ورزی مرسوم (شخم با گاوآهن برگردان‌دار + دیسک)؛ و فاکتور گیاه پوششی در دو سطح شامل C1: گیاه پوششی لگوم (خلر) و C0: بدون گیاه پوششی بودند. نتایج نشان داد شاخص‌های کربن آلی کل، کربن فعال، تنفس پایه، میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه‌ها (MWD)، کربن خاکدانه‌ای، جرم مخصوص ظاهری، تخلخل و همچنین عملکرد دانه کدو به طور معنی‌داری تحت تأثیر گیاه پوششی و خاک‌ورزی قرار گرفتند. مقدار کربن آلی خاک از 4/0 درصد در تیمار CT-C0 به حدود 7/0 درصد در تیمار NT-C1 افزایش داشت. در اکثر شاخص‌ها، بین خاک‌ورزی کمینه و بی خاک‌ورزی تفاوت معنی‌داری مشاهده نشد، مثلا بیشترین مقدار MWD (14/2 میلی‌متر) در تیمار NT-C1 مشاهده شد که با تیمار MT-C1 (56/1 میلی متر) تفاوت معنی‌داری نداشت؛ کم‌ترین مقدار این شاخص (48/0 میلی‌متر) در CT-C0 به‌دست آمد. همچنین بیشترین عملکرد دانه کدو تخمه کاغذی (g/m2 0/142) در تیمار MT-C1 به دست آمد که تفاوت معنی‌داری با تیمار NT-C1 نداشت و کمترین عملکرد دانه کدو (g/m2 3/115) در تیمار خاک‌ورزی مرسوم بدون گیاه پوششی مشاهده شد، اما با تیمارهای NT-C0، MT-C0 و CT-C1 در یک گروه آماری قرار گرفت. در نهایت، تیمار MT-C1 از نظر بهبود عملکرد گیاه و خصوصیات مختلف کیفیت خاک بهتر از تیمارهای دیگر بود اما تفاوت معنی داری با NT-C1 نداشت، به همین دلیل تیمارهای خاک‌ورزی‌های حفاظتی همراه با گیاه پوششی خلر به عنوان مناسب‌ترین رویکرد مدیریتی در بهبود خصوصیات کیفیت خاک و عملکرد گیاهی معرفی می‌شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• بخش‌های کربن آلی
• خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی
• کشاورزی پایدار
• همدان

20.1001.1.20084757.1397.32.1.9.3

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Response of Selected Soil Quality Indices and Crop Yield to Integrated Management of Tillage and Cover Cropping in Cucurbita pepoCultivation

نویسندگان [English]

• Esmaeil Esfandiary Ekhlas ¹
• Mohsen Nael ¹
• Mohsen Nael ²
• Javad Hamzei ²
• Ali Akbar Safari Sinegani ²

¹ Bu-Ali Sina University

² Bu-Ali Sina University

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Soil is a finite natural resource and non-renewable under agricultural production without implementation of sustainable management practices. Ecological sustainability of agroecosystems can be comparatively assessed by soil quality evaluation, which in turn is assessed by soil quality indices. Soil quality is the general term used to refer to “the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem and land-use boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, maintain the quality of air and water environments, and promote plant, animal, and human health”. Conservation tillage and use of cover crops are some of the sustainable agriculture practices that can improve the soil quality by adding organic matter and nutrients, and by acting as scavengers to trap leftover nutrients that otherwise might leach out. Cover crops are used as ground cover, mulches, green manure, nurse crops, smother crops, and forage and food for animals or humans. Given the significant role of tillage practices and crop residue management in soil quality improvement and crop production, a four-year field experiment was conducted to determine selected soil quality indices and Cucurbitapepo yield under different tillage and legume cover crop managements in Hamadan.
Materials and Methods: A four-year field experiment (2011-2014) was carried out at Bu-Ali Sina University experimental field in Dastjerd, Hamadan, as a factorial experiment in randomized complete block design with three replications. The area is located at 37 km of Hamadan, on 35◦ 01' N latitude and 48◦ 31' E langitude with 330 mm annual rainfall and 1690 m altitude. The treatments consisted of three levels of tillage practices (NT: no-till (direct seeding), MT: minimum tillage (chisel plowing + disk) and CT: conventional tillage (moldboard plowing + disk)) and two levels of cover cropping (C1: with legume cover crop (lathyrus sativus) and C0: without cover crop). These treatments were applied for four consecutive years in a way that lathyrus sativus as cover crop were planted in late winter for each year and returned to the soil surface with a trowel when 30% of the field was flowered. One week later, and prior to the cultivation of main crop, the mentioned tillage treatments were implemented. In the fourth year of the project,Cucurbita pepo was planted as the main crop. Soil and plant (Cucurbita pepo) were sampled early autumn (2014) and were analyzed for soil organic carbon, soil active carbon, macro and micro-aggregate carbon, mean weighted diameter of water stable aggregates, soil bulk density, basal microbial respiration and grain yield. Obtained data were analyzed using statistical software SAS 9.4 and the means were compared using LSD multiple range test at 5 percent level.
Results and Discussion: The results revealed that total organic carbon, active carbon, aggregate carbon, mean weighted diameter of water stable aggregates, bulk density, porosity and basal respiration were significantly affected by cover crop and tillage system so that the highest amount of these indicators were obtained in no-tillage system with cover crop treatment (NT-C1) and the lowest amounts were observed in the conventional tillage without cover crop (CT-C0). For instance, mean soil organic carbon increased from 0.4 percent in CT-C0 to about 0.7 percent in NT-C1. For majority of soil quality indices, no significant difference was observed between minimum and no-till; moreover, the application of cover crop in conventional tillage improved some aspects of soil quality. For instance, MWD was the highest (2.14 mm) in NT-C1, and was not significantly different with that of MT-C1 treatment. On the contrary, this index was significantly the lowest (0.48 mm) in CT-C0. The C. pepo grain yield was also significantly affected by tillage system, cover crop and their interactions. The highest grain yield (142.1 g.m‌-2) was obtained in MT-C1 treatment, which did not show significant difference with NT-C1 treatment. The lowest C. pepo grain yield (115.3 g.m‌-2) was observed in conventional tillage without cover crop (CT-C0) treatment, but it was in a same statistical group with NT-C0, MT-C0 and CT-C1 treatments. Cover crop increased organic carbon, active carbon, porosity, bulk density, microbial biomass activity and MWD by enhancing soil organic matter, probably; conservation tillage on its part further improved these effects by preventing the rapid decomposition of organic matter by reduced soil destruction, which eventually increased soil organic carbon, active carbon and production of stable aggregates.
Conclusions: Generally, after four years of applying different tillage practices and cover cropping, it was demonstrated that the integrated management of the conservation tillage (either no-tillage or minimum tillage) with legume cover cropping was the most appropriate management in the semi-arid region of Hamadan in view of selected soil quality indices and crop yield improvements.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Conservation tillage
• Hamadan
• Organic carbon fractions
• Sustainable agriculture

مراجع

1- A´lvaro-Fuentes J., Lo´pez M.V., Arru´e J.L., and Cantero-Martı´nez C. 2008. Management effects on soil carbon dioxide fluxes under semiarid Mediterranean conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal | Digital Library. 72(1): 194–200.

2- Aziz I., Mahmood T., and Islam K.R. 2013. Effect of long term no-till and conventional tillage practices on soil quality. Soil and Tillage Research, 131: 28–35.

3- Bahrani M.J., Raufat M.H., and Ghadiri H. 2007. Influence of wheat residue management on irrigated corn grain production in a reduced tillage system. Soil and Tillage Research, 94: 305-309.

4- Baldock J.A., and Nelson P.N. 2000. Soil organic matter. p. 25-84. In: SUMNER, M.E., ed. Handbook of soil science. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

5- Barzegar A.R., Asoodar M.A., Khadish A., and Hashemi A.M. 2003. Soil physical characteristics and chickpea yield responses to tillage treatments. Soil and Tillage Research, 71: 49-57.

6- Bhattacharyya P., Chakrabarti K., and Chakraborty A. 2005. Microbial biomass and enzyme activities in submerged rice soil amended with municipal solid waste compost and decomposed cow manure. Chemosphere, 60: 310-318.

7- Borie F., Rubio R., Rouanet J.L., Morales A., Borie G., and Rojas C. 2006. Effects of tillage systems on soil characteristics, glomalin and mycorrhizal propagules in a Chilean Ultisol. Soil and Tillage Research, 88: 253-261.

8- Dhainaut Medina D.S. 2015. Long-term reduced tillage and cover cropping change soil chemical properties under irrigated Mediterranean conditions. MS Thesis. University of California Davis, (66 p).

9- Dukes J.S., and Hungate B.A. 2002. Elevated carbon dioxide and litter decomposition in California annual grasslands: which mechanisms matter? Ecosystem, 5: 171– 183.

10- Elsgaard L., Petersen S.O., and Debosz K. 2001. Effect and risk assessment of linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (LAS) in agricultural soil. 2. Effects on soil microbiology as influenced by sewage sludge and incubation time. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20: 1664–1672.

11- Esfandiary Ekhlas ES. 2016. Effect of different tillage systems, cover crop and intercropping on some of soil quality indicators in Dastjerd region, Hamadan. MS Thesis. Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan (In Persian with English abstract).

12- Ghaffari M., Ahmadvand G., Ardakani M.R., Mosaddeghi M.R., Yeganehehpoor F., Gaffari M., and Mirakhori M. 2012. Effect of Cover Crop Residues on Some Physicochemical Properties of Soil and Emergence Rate of Potato. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology, 6(1): 79-90. (In Persian with English abstract).

13- Graham M.H., Haynes R.J., and Meyer J.H. 2002. Soil organic matter content and quality: EVects of fertilizer applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34: 93–102.

14- Iran Weather. 2014. Retrieved august 20, 2016. From http://www.accuweather.com/en/ir/iran-weather.

15- Liu E., Teclemariam S.G., Yan C., Yu J., Gu R., Liu S., He W., and Liu Q. 2014. Long-term effects of no-tillage management practice on soil organic carbon and its fractions in the northern China. Geoderma, 213: 379–384.

16- Loos J., Abson D.J., Chappell M.J., Hanspach J., Mikulcak F., Tichit M., and Fischer J. 2014. Putting meaning back in to “sustainable intensification”. Frontiers in ecology and the environment, 12:356–361.

17- Lopez-Garrido R., Deurer M., Madejo´n E., Murillo J.M., and Moreno F. 2012. Tillage influence on biophysical soil properties: The example of a long-term tillage experiment under Mediterranean rainfed conditions in South Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 118: 52–60.

18- Messiga A.J., Sharifi M., Hammermeister A., Gallant K., Fuller K., and Tango M. 2015. Soil quality response to cover crops and amendments in a vineyard inNova Scotia, Canada. Scientia Horticulturae, 188: 6–14.

19- Mitchell J.P., Shrestha A., Horwath W.R., Southard R.J., Madden N.M., Veenstra J., and Munk, D.S. 2015. Tillage and cover cropping affect crop yields and soil carbon in the San Joaquin Valley. Calif. Agronomy Journal, 107, 588–596.

20- Mitchell J.P., Shrestha A., Mathesius K., Scow K.M., Southard R.J., Haney R.L., Schmidt R., Munk D.S., and Horwath W.R. 2017. Cover cropping and no-tillage improve soil health in an arid irrigated cropping system in California’s San Joaquin Valley, USA. Soil and Tillage Research, 165: 325–335.

21- Muscas E., Cocco A., Mercenaro L., Cabras M., Lentini A., Porqueddu C., and Nieddu G. 2017. Effects of vineyard floor cover crops on grapevine vigor, yield, and fruit quality, and the development of the vine mealybug under a Mediterranean climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 237: 203–212.

22- Nikpoor M., Mahboubi A.A., Mosadeghi M.R., and Safadoust A. 2010. Investigating the Effect of Soil innate Properties on structure Sustainability in Some Soils of Hamadan. Journal of Sciences and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 15(58): 85-96. (In Persian).

23- Novara A., Gristina L., La Mantia T., Rühl J. 2013. Carbon dynamics of soil organic matter in bulk soil and aggregate fraction during secondary succession in a Mediterranean environment. Geoderma, 193–194: 213–221.

24- Palm C.A., Gachengo C.N., Delve R.J., Cadisch G., and Giller K.E. 2001. Organic inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: application of an organic resource database. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 83:27-42.

25- Plaza-Bonilla D., Nolot J.M., Passot S., Raffaillac D., and Justes E. 2016. Grain legume-based rotations managed under conventional tillage need cover crops to mitigate soil organic matter losses. Soil and Tillage Research, 156: 33–43.

26- Poeplau C., and Don A. 2015. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—a meta- analysis. Agriculture ecosystems and environment, 200: 33–41.

27- Radicetti E., Mancinelli R., Moscetti R., and Campiglia E. 2016. Management of winter cover crop residues under different tillage conditions affects nitrogen utilization efficiency and yield of eggplant (Solanum melanogena L.) in Mediterranean environment. Soil and Tillage Research, 155: 329–338.

28- Raiesi F. 2006. Carbon and N mineralization as affected by soil cultivation and crop residue in a calcareous wetland ecosystem in Central Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112: 3-20.

29- Ramroudi M., Majnoun Hosseini N., Hosseinzadeh A.H., Mazaheri D., and Hosseini M.B. 2011. Evaluating the effects cover crops, tillage systems and nitrogen rates on soil properties and sorghum forage yields. Agronomy Journal (Pajouhesh & Sazandegi) 92: 18-23. (in Persian with English abstract).

30- Raoufat M.H., and Mahmodieh R.A. 2005. Stand establishment responses of maize to seedbed residue, seed drill coulters and primary tillage systems. Bio systems Engineering, 90 (3): 261-269.

31- Safari Sinegani A.A. 2015. Soil organic matter. Bu-Ali Sina University Publication. p.364. (in Persian).

32- Safari Sinegani A.A., Sharifi Z., and Safari Sinegani M. 2010. Laboratory Methods in Biology. Bu-Ali Sina University Publication, (in Persian).

33- Salinas-Garcıa J.R., Velazquez-Garcıa J.D.J., Gallardo-Valdez M., Dıaz-Mederos P., Caballero-Hernandez F., Tapia-Vargas L.M., and Rosales-Robles E. 2002. Tillage effects on microbial biomass and nutrient distribution in soils under rain-fed corn production in central-Western Mexico. Soil and Tillage Research, 66 (2): 143–152.

34- Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 2015. https://www.soils.org/IYS.

35- Velten S., Leventon J., Jager N., and Newig J. 2015. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability, 7: 7833–7865.

36- Walkley A., and Black I.A. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid in soil analysis. Experimental soil science, 79: 459-465.

37- Weil R.R., Islam K.R., Stine M.A., Gruver J.B., and 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: 3–17.

38- Youker R.E., and McGuiness J.L. 1957. A short method of obtaining mean weight diameter values of aggregate analysis of soils. Soil Science Society of America, 83: 291-294.