Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T17:59:46.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Community Response to Saffron–Black Zira Intercropping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mohsen B. Mesgaran ,
Hamid R. Mashhadi ,
Mahmood Khosravi ,
Eskandar Zand  and
Hasan Mohammad-Alizadeh
Mohsen B. Mesgaran*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Hamid R. Mashhadi
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Mahmood Khosravi
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Eskandar Zand
Affiliation:
Plant Pathology Institute, Tehran, Iran
Hasan Mohammad-Alizadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intercropping is an eco-friendly approach for reducing weed problems through nonchemical methods. Intercrop effects on weed community structure have rarely been studied. A 6-yr study was initiated in 1999 and the response of aboveground weed flora (1999–2002 and 2005) and seed bank (2005) to the intercropping of saffron and black zira, two perennial crops was investigated. Mixtures consisted of 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, and 100/0 saffron/black zira ratios, each planted at three densities: 30, 50, and 70 plant m−2. The effect of planting density on weed populations was variable and in most cases not significant. However, mixture ratios caused drastic species compositional changes in the weed community for which univariate and multivariate analyses explored four major associations: (1) weeds that favored a higher ratio of saffron in mixtures (e.g., grasses, field bindweed, pigweeds), (2) weeds that preferred a higher ratio of black zira in mixtures (e.g., Persian speedwell, Brassicaceae complex, Polygoaceae complex, and earthsmoke), (3) weeds that were more abundant in 50/50 mixtures (e.g., Caryophyllaceae complex), and (4) weeds that showed no specific pattern (e.g., common lambsquarterss). Pigweeds, prostrate knotweed, and common lambsquarters dominated the viable seed bank with relative densities of 48, 28, and 8%, respectively. The seed bank of most weed species responded to mixture ratios in a similar manner to those of their corresponding aboveground flora. Seed density decreased as soil depth increased, leading to the accumulation of 66, 22, and 12% of viable seeds in soil layers of 0–5, 5–15 and 15–25 cm, respectively. Greater weed and seed densities were found in more pure stands of black zira. These findings contribute to improving current understanding of crop–weed community structures and may help in developing weed management practices.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALearthsmoke, Fumaria vaillantii Loisfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARPersian speedwell, Veronica persica Poir. VERPEprostrate knotweed, Polygonum aviculare L. POLAVblack zira, Bunium persicum (Boiss.) B. Fedtschsaffron, Crocus sativus L.Compositional changesweed floraseed bank
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 400 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L., Stymiest, C. E., Swan, B. A., and Rickertsen, J. R. 2007. Weed community response to crop rotations in western South Dakota. Weed Technol. 21:131–135.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40:654–659.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.Google Scholar
Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K., and Ghose, S. S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. Eur. J. Agron. 24:325–332.Google Scholar
Baumann, D. T., Bastiaans, L., and Kropf, M. J. 2001. Effects of intercropping on growth and reproductive capacity of late-emerging Senecio vulgaris L., with special reference to competition for light. Ann. Bot. 87:209–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, D. T., Kropf, M. J., and Bastiaans, L. 2000. Intercropping leeks to suppress weeds. Weed Res. 40:361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1999. Weed population responses to weed control practices. I. Seedbank, weed populations, and crop yields. Weed Sci. 47:416–422.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 5l:448–460.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39:186–194.Google Scholar
Carruthers, K., Fe, Q., Cloutier, D., and Smith, D. L. 1998. Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forages: weed control by intercrops combined with interrow cultivation. Eur. J. Agron. 8:225–238.Google Scholar
Challa, P. and Miller, D. A. 1998. Allelopathic effects of major weeds on vegetable crops. Allelopath. J. 5:920–925.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44:314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of weed populations. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 332.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005a. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S., Cardina, J., Forcella, F., Johnson, A., Kegode, G., Lindquist, J. L., Luschei, E. C., Renner, K. A., Sprague, C. L., and Williams, M. M. 2005b. Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across U.S. Corn Belt. Weed Sci. 53:860–868.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Watson, P. R., and Loepky, H. A. 1998. Weed composition in seedbanks, seedling and mature plant communities in a multi-year trial in western Canada. Asp. Appl. Biol. 41:43–50.Google Scholar
Dorado, J., Del Mont, J. P., and Lopez-Fando, C. 1999. Weed seedbank response to crop rotation and tillage in semiarid agroecosystems. Weed Sci. 47:67–73.Google Scholar
Eslam-Abasi, M. 1996. Evaluating the effect of different herbicides on weeds of saffron crop. . Mashhad, Iran Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. 95.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Fuerst, E. P., and Kennedy, A. C. 2004. Effects of tillage, fungicide seed treatment, and soil fumigation on seedbank dynamics of wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 52:597–604.Google Scholar
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E. S. 2001. Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Res. 70:101–109.Google Scholar
Kafi, M., Kakhki, A. H., and Karbasi, A. 2006. Historical background, economy, acreage, production, yield and uses. Pages 1–13. in Kafi, M., Koochaki, A., Rashed-Mohasel, M. H., and Nassiri, M. Saffron (Crocus sativus) Production and Processing. Enfield, NH Science.Google Scholar
Khosravi, M. 1993. Botany, ecology and the possibility of agronomical production of black zira (Bunium persicum). . Mashhad, Iran Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.Google Scholar
Khosravi, M. 2005. Agroecological and economical perspectives in mixed culture of black zira (Bunium persicum) with saffron and annual crops. Ph.D. dissertation. Mashhad, Iran Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. 119.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop-rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Ghersa, C. M., and Satorre, E. H. 2000. Coevolution of agriculture systems and their weed companions: implications for research. Field Crops Res. 67:181–190.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Liebman, M. 1987. Weed productivity and composition in sole crops and intercrops of barley and field pea. J. Appl. Ecol. 24:685–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosaferi, Z. H. 2001. The effect of different irrigation regimes on saffron yield. . Mashhad, Iran Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. 84.Google Scholar
Poggio, S. L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 109:48–58.Google Scholar
Poggio, S. L., Satorre, E. H., and de la Fuente, E. B. 2004. Structure of weed communities occurring in pea and wheat crops in the Rolling Pampa (Argentina). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 103:225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimian, M. H., Beheshtian, M. M., and Zand, E. 2007. Evaluating the efficiency of different weed seed extraction methods in soil seed bank studies. http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/SearchResults.asp. Accessed July 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Rashed-Mohassel, M. H. 2006. Saffron botany. Pages 13–39. in Kafi, M., Koochaki, A., Rashed-Mohassel, M. H., and Nassiri, M. Saffron (Crocus sativus) Production and Processing. Enfield, NH Science.Google Scholar
Reberg-Horton, C., Gallandt, E. R., and Molloy, T. 2006. Measuring community shifts in a weed seedbank study with the use of distance-based redundancy analysis. Weed Sci. 54:861–866.Google Scholar
Saucke, H. and Ackermann, K. 2006. Weed suppression in mixed cropped grain peas and false flax (Camelina sativa). Weed Res. 46:453–461.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Kenzevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Effects of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil. Weed Res. 42:76–87.Google Scholar
Szumigalski, A. and Van Acker, R. 2005. Weed suppression and crop production in annual intercrops. Weed Sci. 53:813–825.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. L. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol. 7:699–705.Google Scholar
Vandermeer, J. H. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. New York Cambridge University Press. 237.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Burnside, O. C., and Fenster, C. R. 1971. Influence of soil type and depth of planting on downy brome seed. Weed Sci. 19:82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. 1979. Intercropping—its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abst. 32:1–10.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seeds in soil. Weed Sci. 40:429–433.Google Scholar