Effect of sole and intercropping systems on yield and yield component of pinto bean in controlling and no-weeding of weeds

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Student, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Assistance Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

4 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

To study the response of pinto-bean yield and yield components in intercropping with maize and naked-pumpkin under weed competition, two similar experiments were conducted in Rasht and Roudsar separately each in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications on factorial arrangements experiment in 2013. The treatments of first factor consisted of  pinto bean (100 and 75%) sole cropping, maize – pinto bean (100-100 and 75-75%) double cropping and maize- pinto bean- naked pumpkin triple cropping (100-100-75 and 75-75-75%). The treatments of second factor include twice hand weeding and no weeding. The results showed that nine weed species were found in Rasht and six weed species were in Roudsar experimental stations. The broadleaf pigweed in Rousdsar and grassy weeds of Bermudagrass and hairy crabgrass were dominant in Rasht. In Roudsar area, the hand weeding treatments had outstanding role in weeds control, while, in Rasht experiments was not clear, due to presence of perennial weed. Double and triple cropping systems suppressed weeds more than sole cropping systems. In Roudsar, the highest number of pods per plant, number of grain per pod, 100 grain weight and grain yield of pinto bean were observed in sole cropping in hand weeding and the lowest amount of them were observed in sole cropping system in no weeding. In Rasht, the highest grain yield was observed in sole cropping with high planting density. Finally, double and triple cropping systems due to better weed control produced the highest yield and yield components in comparison with sole cropping systems in no weeding treatment.

Keywords

References

  1. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A. & NassiriMahallati, M. (2010). Yield, yield components and potential weed control of intercropping bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 7(2), 541-553. (in Farsi)
  2. Boehner, P.R. & Francis, C.A. (1993). Yield component comparisons at different densities with maize and soybean strip intercrop. Agronomy Abstracts, 85th Annual meeting, pp. 130, ASA.
  3. Carruthers, K., Prithiviraj, B., Cloutier, Q. Fe. D., Martin, R. C. & Smith, D. L. (1998). Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forage yield component responses. European Journal of Agronomy, 12, 103-115.
  4. Chandel, A.S., Singh, V.K. & Saxena, S.G. (1987). Stability of soybean varieties for maize+soybean intercropping. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 57, 330-335.
  5. Elmore, R.W. & Jackobs, H.A. (1986). Yield and nitrogen yield of sorghum intercropped with nodulating and nonnodulating soybeans. Agronomy Journal, 78, 780-789.
  6. Farahvash, F., Rahmatia, A., Jafari, F. & Amir Hallaji, H. (2012). Effect of number of planting rows in strip intercropping of maize-pinto bean and maize-soybean. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology and weed, 5(4), 27-42. (in Farsi)   
  7. Ghanbari, A.M. & Taheri Mazandarani, A. (2004). Effect of sowing date and plant density on yield of spotted bean. Journal of Seedling and Seed, 19, 483- 496. (in Farsi)
  8. Hollander, N.G., Bastiaans, L. & Kropff, M.J. (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.
  9. Jadoski, S.O., Carlesso, R., Wolschick, Petry, D.T. & Frizzo, Z. (2000). Plant population and row spacing for irrigated dry bean. II: Grain yield and yield components. Brazilian Ciencia Rural, 30, 567-573.
  10. Jamshidi, KH., Mazaheri, D., Majnoun Hosseini, N., Rahimian Mashhadi, H. & Peyghambari, S. A. (2011). Investigation of Corn/Cowpea intercropping effect on suppresing the weeds. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 42(2), 233-241. (in Farsi)
  11. Koochaki, A. & Sarmad Niya, G.H. (2000). Crop Physiology. Mashhad Jahad Daneshgahi Publication. Pp: 400. (in Farsi)
  12. Koocheki, A., Lalehgani, B. & Najibnia, S. (2009). Evaluation of productivity in bean and corn intercropping. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 7(2), 605-614. (in Farsi)
  13. Liebman, M., Corson, S., Rowe, R. J. & Halteman, W. A. (1995). Dry bean response to nitrogen fertilizer in two tillage and residue management systems. Agronomy Journal, 87, 538-546.
  14. Mansouri, L., Jamshidi, K. H., Rastgo, M., Saba, J. & Mansouri, H. (2013). The effect of additive intercropping maize (Zea Mays L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on yield, yield components and control weeds in Zanjan climatic conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 11(3), 483-492. (in Farsi)
  15. Morgado, L.B. & Willey, R.W. (2008). Optimum plant population for maize-bean intercropping system in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Science of Agriculture, 65(5), 474-480.
  16. Oforti, F. & Stern, W.R. (1987). Relative sowing time and density of component crops in maize/cowpea intercrop system. Experimental Agriculture, 23, 42-52.
  17. Poggio, S. L. (2005). Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 109, 48-58.
  18. Protasov, N. (1995). The tendency of change of weed phytocenosis in the North-Eastern part of Byelorussia. In: Proceedings of the International conference: Weed Control in the Changing Situation of Farming in the Baltic Region, 4-6 Oct., Lithuanian Academy of Agriculture Kaunas, Lithuania, pp. 210.
  19. Rezends, G.D.S.P. & Ramalho, M.A. (1994). Competitive ability of maize and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars intercropped in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, 123, 185-190.
  20. Ronald, M. & Charles, K. (2012). Weed Suppression and Component Crops Response in Maize/Pumpkin Intercropping Systems in Zimbabwe. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(7), 231-236. 
  21. Sleugh, B., Moore, K.J., George, J.R. & Brummer, E.C. (2000). Binary legume-grass mixtures improve forage yield, quality, and seasonal distribution. Agronomy Journal, 92, 24-29.
  22. 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.
  23. Willey, R.W. & Osiru, D.S.O. (1972). Studies on mixtures of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with special reference to plant population. Journal of Agricultural Science, 79, 519-529.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 January 2015
  • Revise Date: 23 September 2015
  • Accept Date: 26 September 2015
  • Publish Date: 21 May 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics