ارزیابی عمق زیرشکن زدن مزارع بازرویی نیشکر بر برخی شاخص‌های خاک و گیاه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

تحقیقات کشاورزی، کشت و صنعت کارون، شوشتر، ایران

چکیده

عملیات سنگین تهیه زمین و تسطیح در کشت نیشکر خوزستان، باعث تخریب ساختمان خاک شده و خاک را در هنگام عملیات برداشت مستعد فشردگی می­کند. به‌منظور کاهش اثرات فشردگی خاک و بهبود توسعه ریشه، عملیات زیرشکن‌زنی (زیرشکن‌زنی) در مزارع سنین بازرویی نیشکر مرسوم است. از آنجایی که زیرشکن‌زنی زیرشکن‌زنی، به‌طور مستقیم بر توسعه ریشه نیشکر تأثیر­گذار است، بنابراین این پژوهش با هدف بررسی عمق زیرشکن‌زنی زیرشکن‌زنیمزارع بازرویی نیشکر بر جرم ویژهویژه ظاهری خاک و اثر آن بر توسعه ریشه گیاه و به دنبال آن، عملکرد کمّی و کیفی نیشکر انجام شد. برای این منظور، عملیات زیرشکن‌زنی زیرشکن‌زنیدر دو عمق 30 (R-30) و 50 (R-50) سانتی­متری، اعمال و با شاهد (بدون زیرشکن‌زنیزیرشکن‌زنی) مقایسه گردید. در پایان رشد و پیش از برداشت، عملکرد کمّی شامل ارتفاع، قطر، تعداد ساقه و نیز وزن تَر ساقه نیشکر در واحد سطح در سه تکرار تعیین شد. پس از برداشت، توسعه ریشه نیشکر در اعماق مختلف خاک مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج تجزیه واریانس نشان داد عمق زیرشکن‌زنی به‌طور قابل‌توجهی ارتفاع نیشکر، تراکم نی در متر مربع، وزن ساقه، عملکرد نیشکر قابل آسیاب، عملکرد شکر و جرم ویژهویژه ظاهری خاک در عمق 50  سانتی­متری (BD50) را تحت تأثیر قرار داد. تیمار R-50، ارتفاع (2/28 درصد)، تعداد ساقه (7/5 درصد)، وزن تک نی (42 درصد)، عملکرد نیشکر (55 درصد) و شکر (53 درصد) را نسبت به شاهد افزایش و جرم ویژهویژه ظاهری در عمق 50 سانتی­متر را کاهش (6/3 درصد) داد. اما تیمار R-30، افزایش جرم ویژه ظاهری خاک (6/3 درصد) و کاهش عملکرد نیشکر (8/12 درصد) را نسبت به شاهد به دنبال داشت. هم‌چنین، وزن ریشه، در تیمار R-50 در مقایسه با شاهد و به ویژه R-30 بیش‌تر بود. علاوه بر این، بیش از 50 درصد توزیع ریشه در تیمار R-30 در لایه 10 سانتی‌متر اول خاک مشاهده شد. به­طور کلی نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد که عملیات ناقص زیرشکن‌زنی در عمق30 سانتی­متر، نه تنها اثر مثبت بر فاکتورهای مورد مطالعه نداشته، بلکه افزایش جرم ویژه ظاهری خاک، گسترش سطحی­تر ریشه و در نتیجه، کاهش عملکرد نیشکر را به دنبال داشته است. به عبارت دیگر، محدودیت توسعه ریشه به اعماق خاک، سبب تراکم بیش‌تر ریشه در سطح خاک شده و باعث جذب مواد غذایی در حجم محدودتری از خاک می­شود که در نهایت، کاهش رشد گیاه و عملکرد نیشکر را به دنبال داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Subsoiling Depth of Fields of Ratoon Cane on some Soil and Plant Indices

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Mahohi
  • Hassan ali Khatinzade
Agricultural Researches Department, Karun Agro Industrial, Inc, Shushtar, Iran
چکیده [English]

Heavy land preparation and leveling in sugarcane cultivation in Khuzestan damages soil structure. It makes the soil prone to compaction during harvesting. To reduce the effects of soil compaction and root improvement, rotation operations are common in ratoon field. Since subsoil (ratooning) plowing directly affects the development of sugarcane roots, therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the depth of ratooning operations of fields of ratoon cane on soil bulk density and its effect on plant root development and subsequent quantitative and qualitative yield of sugarcane. Ratooning operations were conducted at two depths of 30 and 50 cm and compared with no ratooning control. Quantitative yield including height, diameter, number of cane and shoot fresh weight per unit area were determined at the end of growth and before harvest. After harvest, cane root distribution was investigated in different depths. The results of analysis of variance showed that the ratooning depth operations were significantly affected cane height, stalk number per m-2, stalk weight, millable cane yield, sugar yield, and soil bulk density. But the cane stalk diameter, syrup brix, recoverable sugar, and soil bulk density at a depth of 30 (BD30) cm were not affected by the depth of ratooning. R-50 treatment increased cane height (28.2%), stem number (5.7%), stalk weight (42%), millable cane yield (55%) and sugar (53%) compared to control, and reduced soil bulk density in depth of 50 cm (3.6%). However, R-30 treatment resulted in increased soil bulk density (3.6%) and reduced yield of sugarcane (12.8%) compared to control. Also, root weight was higher in R-50 treatment compared to control and especially R-30. In addition, more than 50% of root distribution was observed in R-30 treatment in the first 10 cm layer of soil. In general, the results of this study showed that reducing the depth of ratooning to 30 cm, not only did not have a positive effect on the above factors, but also increased the soil bulk density, more root extending near the soil surface and eventually, reduced sugarcane yield. In other words, limiting root development to soil depth causes more root density on the soil surface and thus leads to the absorption of nutrients in a more limited volume of soil, which ultimately reduces plant growth and sugarcane yield.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Soil compaction
  • Ratooning
  • Soil bulk density
  • Sugarcane
  • Root distribution

مراجع

Alameda D., Anten N.P.R., and Villar R. 2012. Soil compaction effects on growth and root traits of tobacco depend on light, water regime and mechanical stress. Soil and Tillage Research, 120: 121-129.
Barzegar A.R., Mahmoodi Sh., Hamedi F., and Abdolvahabi F. 2005. Long term sugarcane cultivation effects on physical properties of fine textured soils. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 7: 59-68. (In Persian).
Blackburn F. 1984. Sugar-cane. Longman, New York, ISBN: 0-582-46028-X, 414 p.
Camargo L.A., Marques Junior J., and Pereira G.T. 2010. Spatial variability of physical attributes of an Alfisol under different hill slope curvatures. Brazilian Journal of Soil Science, 34: 617- 630.
Cheong L.R.N., Kwong K.F.K., and Preez C.C.D. 2009. Soil compaction under sugar cane (Saccharumhybrid sp.) cropping and mechanization in Mauritius, South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 26: 199-205.
Dwyer L.M., Stewart D.W., and Balchin D. 1988. Rooting characteristics of corn, soybean and barley as a function of available water and soil physical characteristics. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 68: 121-132.
Gee G.W., and Bauder J.W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Ed. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 383-411.
Håkansson I., and Lipiec J. 2000. A review of the usefulness of relative bulk density values in studies of soil structure and compaction. Soil and Tillage Research, 53: 71-85.
Humbert R.P. 1968. The Growing of Sugarcane. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
Hunsigi G. 2001. Sugarcane in Agriculture and Industry. Prism Books, Bangalore, India.
Jones C.A. 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 47: 1208-1211.
Klute A. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Ed. SSSA/ASA Monograph, Madison, WI, 1188 pp.
Laboski C.A.M., Dowdy R.H., Allmars R.R., and Lamb J.A. 1998. Soil strength and water content influences on corn root distribution in a sandy soil. Plant and Soil, 203: 239-247.
Loeppert R.H., and Suarez D.L. 1996. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. SSSA Madison. pp. 437-474.
Lorzadeh Sh., Nadian H., Bbakhshandeh A.B., Nourmohamadi Gh., And Darvish F. 2002. Effects of different levels of soil compaction on yield, yield components and sucrose in sugarcane cv. CP48-103, in Khuzestan, Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 4: 36-47. (In Persian).
Meade G.P., and Chen J.C.F. 1977. Cane sugar handbook. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Nadian H., Smith S.E., Alston A.M. and Murray R.S. 1996. The effect of compaction on growth and P uptake by Trifolium subterraneum: Interactions with mycorrhizal colonisation. Plant and Soil, 182: 39-49.
Nelson D.W., and Sommers L.E. 1996. Total carbon organic carbon and organic matter. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis part 3 Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America: Madison WI SSSA Book Serie. pp. 153-188.
Nguyen D.T.N., Suralta R.R., Nakata M.K., Mitsuya S., Stella Owusu-Nketia S., and Yamauchi A.  2018. Genotypic variations in the plasticity of nodal root penetration through the hardpan during soil moisture fluctuations among four rice varieties. Plant Production Science, 21: 93-105.
Otto R., Silva A.P., Franco H.C.J., Oliveira E.C.A., and Trivelin P.C.O. 2011. High soil penetration resistance reduces sugarcane root system development. Soil Tillage Research, 117: 201-210.
Pankhurst C.E., Magarey R.C., Sirling G.R., Blair B.L., Bell M.J., and Garside A.L. 2003. Management practices to improve soil health and reduce the effects of detrimental soil biota associated with yield decline of sugarcane in Queensland, Australia. Soil Tillage Research, 72: 125-137.
Reichert J.M., Eduardo L., Suzuki A.S., Reinert D.J., Horn R., and Håkansson I. 2009. Reference bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in subtropical highly weathered soils. Soil Tillage Research, 102: 242-254.
Reichert J.M., Suzuki L.E.A., and Reinert D.J. 2007. Soil compaction in agricultural and forestry systems: identification, effects, critical limits and mitigation. Topics in Soil Science, 5: 49–134.
Rhoades J. 1986. Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.). Methods of soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemial Properties. Soil Science Society of America. Madison Wisconsin. pp. 417- 435.
Rice E.R., and Hebert L.P. 1972. Sugarcane variety tests in Florida during the 1971-72 season. USDA Agr. Res. Ser. S-2.
Smith D.M., Inman-Bamber N.G., and Thorburn P.J. 2005. Growth and function of the sugarcane. Root system. Field Crops Research, 92: 169-184.
Souza G.S., Souza Z.M., Barboza R.S., Sobreira, R.B., and Silva F.A. 2014. Effects of traffic control on the soil physical quality and the cultivation of sugarcane. Brazilian Journal of Soil Science, 8: 135–146.
Tekeste M.Z., Raper R. and Schwab., E. 2008. Soil Drying Effects on Soil Strength and Depth of Hardpan Layers as Determined from Cone Index Data. Agri. Engin. Int: CIGR E. J. Manuscript LW 07 010. Vol. X.
Thomas G.W. 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. SSSA Madison. pp. 475-490.
Torres J.L.R., Pereira M.G., Cunha M.A., Martins M.E., and Vieira D.M.S. 2013. Physicochemical properties of soil and biomass in sugarcane harvesting systems. Agricultural Science Magazine, 56: 311-318.
Torres J.S., and Villegas F. 1992. Differentiation of soil compaction and cane stool damage. Sugarcane, 1:7-11.
United State Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Handbook. 60. Washington, DC.
Vischi Filho O.J., Souza Z.M., Souza G.S., Silva R.B., Torres J.L.R., Lima M.E., and Tavares R.L.M. 2017. Physical attributes and limiting water range as soil quality indicators after mechanical harvesting of sugarcane. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 11: 169-176.
Wood K. 1985. Compaction of soil by agriculture equipment. Soil Use and Management, 1: 120-124.
تحقیقات کاربردی خاک
دوره 9، شماره 3
آذر 1400
صفحه 134-146

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 10 تیر 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 16 دی 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 20 دی 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار