Investigating the Effect of Integrated and Agronomic Management of Spring Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Weed Control in Kalibar City

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Plant Ecophysiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz. Tabriz, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science and Engineering, Ahar Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

3 PhD Student, Department of Horticultural Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

4 MSc Graduated. Department of Plant Ecophysiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
Weeds are one of the most important factors that reduce the growth and yield of plants, and weed control is one of the most important managements in farms. Various methods have been reported to control weeds. In order to control weeds, farmers have to use herbicides with destructive biological effects. The use of high concentrations of herbicides increases the resistance of various weeds and endangers the health of the environment. Weeds are controlled by manual, agronomic and chemical methods. Although weed management by methods such as weeding and the use of herbicides are effective in controlling weeds, these methods are uneconomical and cause environmental pollution. Therefore, it is necessary to use an alternate method to control weeds. According to the mentioned topics, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of integrated and agronomic management of weeds in spring safflower fields and the yield and yield components of safflower seeds (Carthamus tinctorius L.) in Kalibar city in East Azerbaijan.
 
Materials and methods
In this study, the effect of integrated and agronomic management of weed control on the yield of safflower oil seed and medicinal plant was carried out in four replications based on a randomized complete block design. In this study, experimental treatments include the application of various weed control methods at 9 levels, including 1. Complete weeding of weeds during the entire safflower growth period (control), 2. Straw and stubble mulch of wheat (three tons/ha), 3. V. villosa (density of 50 plants per square meter), planting distance on the row 10 cm and between rows 20 cm, 4. V. ervilia cover plant (density of 50 plants per square meter), planting distance on the row 10 cm and between rows 20 cm, 5. Application of 100 % trifluralin herbicide (2.5 L/ha) before planting, 6. Application of 100% haloxyfop – R-Methyl herbicide (1 L/ha) in the five-leaf stage of weeds and narrow leaf plants, 7. Application of 50% trifluralin herbicide (1.25 L/ha) along with straw and stubble mulch before planting, 8. Application of 50% haloxyfop – R-Methyl herbicide (0.5 L/ha) along with straw and stubble mulch in the five-leaf stage of weeds of narrow leaf plants, 9. Lack of control of weeds. Weeds were present throughout the growth period (uncontrollable evidence). Analysis of the variance of the measured traits was done in the form of randomized complete block design with four replications. Before analysis of variance, establishing the assumptions of normality of distribution of deviations, uniformity of within-treatment variances and summability of block and treatment effects were checked and confirmed by Tukey 's test. Comparison of the average traits was done using Duncan's test at the five percent probability level. SPSS and Excel software were used for statistical analyzes and graphs.
 
Results and discussion
According to the findings of this study, the highest yield of safflower seed was achieved in the complete weeding of weeds, which was not significantly different from trifluralin herbicide + straw mulch and wheat stubble. Trifluralin herbicide treatments + straw mulch and wheat stubble and complete weeding caused an increase of 119% and 128.6% respectively in safflower seed yield. The application of mulch alone increased the yield of safflower seed by 62.5%, but the cover plant of safflower, the cover plant of cowpea and the herbicide haloxyfop – R-Methyl had no significant effect on the yield of safflower seed. The weed control treatments increased the grain yield by increasing the number of seeds produced, but the 1000-seed weight was not affected by the weed control treatments.
 
Conclusions
The highest increase in the number of seeds per plant (34.3%), the number of seeds per plant (97.8%) and the yield of seeds (119.%) was obtained in the treatment of trifluralin herbicide + straw and stubble mulch of wheat. These results show that trifluralin herbicide + straw and stubble mulch of wheat were the most effective among the non-mechanical weed control treatments of safflower field. The results showed that the seed yield with 128.6% and the number of seeds per plant with 110% changes showed the greatest response to weed control treatments. The results showed that using straw and stubble mulch can reduce the use of chemical pesticides in weed control. According to the results of weed control, it has had a significant effect on reducing the density and biomass of weeds.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Abd El-Mohsen, A. A., & Mahmoud, G. O. (2013). Modeling the influence of nitrogen rate and plant density on seed yield, yield components and seed quality of safflower. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3, 336-360. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2013/2886
Abdulrahmani, B. (2014). Investigating the effect of different weed control methods on the performance of spring safflower cultivar Arak 2811 in dry conditions. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7, 21-28. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.15625540.1384.7.1.2.4
Adıgüzel, S., & Çavaş, T. (2017). Trifluralin,treflan ve etil metan sülfonatın oreochromis niloticus'ta oluşturduğu genotoksik hasar üzerine askorbik asitin antigenotoksik etkisi. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.17100/nevbiltek.331407
Ahmad, S., Raza, M. A. S., Saleem, M. F., Zaheer, M. S., Iqbal, R., Haider, I., & Khan, I. H. (2020). Significance of partial root zone drying and mulches for water saving and weed suppression in wheat. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 30, 154-162. https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2020.1.0018
Antralina, M., Istina, I. N., & Simarmata, T. (2015). Effect of difference weed control methods to yield of lowland rice in the SOBARI. Procedia Food Science, 3, 323-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2015.01.035
Bergtold, J. S., Ramsey, S., Maddy, L., & Williams, J. R. (2019). A review of economic considerations for cover crops as a conservation practice. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 34, 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000278
Cregg, B. M. & Schutzki, R. 2009. Weed control and organic mulches affect physiology and growth of landscape shrubs. HortScience, 44, 1419-1424. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.5.1419
Evers, J. B., & Bastiaans, L. (2016). Quantifying the effect of crop spatial arrangement on weed suppression using functional-structural plant modelling. Journal of Plant Research, 129, 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-016-0807-2
Iqbal, R., Raza, M. A., Saleem, M. F., Khan, I. H., Ahmad, S., Zaheer, M. S., Zaheer, M. U., & Haider, I. (2019). Physiological and biochemical appraisal for mulching and partial rhizosphere drying of cotton. Journal of Arid Land, 11, 785-794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-019-0014-9
Kader, M. A., Singha, A., Begum, M. A., Jewel, A., Khan, F. H., & Khan, N. I. (2019). Mulching as water-saving technique in dryland agriculture. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 43, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0186-7
Kaye, J. P., & Quemada, M. (2017). Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 37, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x
Knezevic, S. Z., & Datta, A. (2015). The critical period for weed control: revisiting data analysis. Weed Science, 63, 188-202. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-14-00035.1
Masilamany, D. I. L. I. P. K. U. M. A. R., Mat, M. C., & Seng, C. T. (2017). The potential use of oil palm frond mulch treated with imazethapyr for weed control in Malaysian coconut plantation. Sains Malaysiana, 46, 1171-1181. https://doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2017-4608-02
Menalled, U. D., Bybee-Finley, K. A., Smith, R. G., DiTommaso, A., Pethybridge, S. J., & Ryan, M. R. (2020). Soil-mediated effects on weed-crop competition: Elucidating the role of annual and perennial intercrop diversity legacies. Agronomy, 10, 1373-1385. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091373
Prashamsha, G., Prasanth, P., Natarajan, S., & Naik, D. S. (2019). Effect of different levels of nitrogen and weed management practices on flower quality and yield of gaillardia (Gaillardia pulchella Foug.) under Hyderabad conditions. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 8, 1805-1808 https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.810.137
Silva, J. M., de Brito Santos, F. L., Santos, R. V., de Oliveira Barreto, E., Santos, E. L., Santana, A. E. G., & Abreu, F. C. (2017). Determination of genotoxic effect of trifluralin on Colossoma macropomum (Teleostei: Characidae: Serrasalminae, Cuvier, 1816) using a multibiomarker approach. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Contamination, 12, 85-93. https://doi.org/10.5132/eec.2017.01.11
Somerville, G. J., Sønderskov, M., Mathiassen, S. K., & Metcalfe, H. (2020). Spatial modelling of within-field weed populations; a review. Agronomy, 10, 1044-1054. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10071044
Tan, D., Fan, Y., Liu, J., Zhao, J., Ma, Y., & Li, Q. (2019). Winter wheat grain yield and quality response to straw mulching and planting pattern. Agricultural Research, 8, 548-552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-019-00401-1
Tursun, N., Işık, D., Demir, Z., & Jabran, K. (2018). Use of living, mowed, and soil-incorporated cover crops for weed control in apricot orchards. Agronomy, 8, 150-164. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8080150
Ye, F., Cao, H. F., Fu, Y., Zhao, L. X., & Gao, S. (2016). The safener effect of chiral derivatives of 3-dichloroacetyl oxazolidine against haloxyfop-P-methyl-induced toxicity in maize. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 103, 422-429. https://doi.org/10.13080/z-a.2016.103.004