آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 45 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,538 |
| تعداد مقالات | 18,760 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 62,613,432 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 22,574,555 |
Impact of row spacing, planting pattern, and cover crop on controlling weeds and improving antioxidant defense system, osmolyte accumulation, and plant performance in maize | ||
| Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding | ||
| دوره 15، شماره 2، 2025، صفحه 171-191 اصل مقاله (746.11 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jppb.2025.65519.1359 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ghorban Didehbaz Moghanlo* 1؛ Shahram Alizadeh2؛ Razieh Dadkhah Kandeh3؛ Negin Taleschian Tabrizi4؛ Sajjad Moharramnejad5 | ||
| 1Plant Protection Research Department, Ardabil Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Moghan, Iran. | ||
| 2Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran. | ||
| 3Dr. Hesabi Art School, Parsabad Education Management, Parsabad, Iran. | ||
| 4Department of Plant Eco-physiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| 5Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Ardabil Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Moghan, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Objective: This study investigated the effects of row spacing, planting pattern, and weed control methods on maize grain yield, weed control, antioxidant defense system, and osmolyte accumulation. Methods: To conduct the experiment, the maize cultivar TWC647 was planted in the row spacings of 75 cm and 65 cm, using two planting patterns, conventional single-row (CSR) and zigzag double-row (ZDR). Also, five different weed control methods were implemented, including a weedy check throughout the growing season, Trifolium alexandrinum L., Secale cereale L., Vicia villosa L., and the herbicide MaisTer Power OD® 42.5% (containing foramsulfuron and idosulfuron). Then, the protein content, H2O2, total phenols, total soluble proteins, proline, superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POX), catalase (CAT), and malondialdehyde (MDA), were measured. Results: The biomass of cover crops was significantly affected by row spacing, planting pattern, cover crop, and their two-way interactions. The highest cover crop biomass was obtained for the 75 cm row spacing with the CSR planting pattern. The rye cover crop showed the highest biomass in both row spacing and the CSR planting pattern. The distribution of grass weed species was relatively even throughout the experimental site. The lowest weed biomass was obtained in rye and vetch with the 65 cm row spacing and also under both CSR and ZDR planting patterns. Maize grain yield was significantly affected by the row spacing × cover crop interaction, with maize alongside the rye cover crop producing the highest grain yield per hectare in the 65-cm row spacing, significantly higher than in the 75-cm row spacing. MDA was higher at the 65 cm row spacing and under CSR planting pattern than at the 75 cm row spacing and ZDR planting pattern. The lowest and the highest MDA among the weed-control methods were observed for the rye cover crop and the herbicide MaisTer. H2O2 was also higher in the 65 cm row spacing. The highest H2O2 content of maize leaves was obtained for the herbicide MaisTer under CSR. Proline, total proteins, and total phenols were also greater at the 65 cm row spacing. Conclusion: The narrow row spacing (65 cm) with rye inter-row cover crop reduced weed biomass compared to wider row spacing (75 cm). The 65 cm row spacing also resulted in higher grain yield of maize when the rye cover crop was planted among the maize rows. The 65 cm row spacing also exhibited higher total proteins, total phenols, proline, MDA, and H2O2 content. However, the rye cover crop decreased H2O2 and MDA compared to the herbicide and weedy check. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Antioxidant؛ Control؛ Density؛ Isoform؛ Maize؛ Weed | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adetunji AT, Ncube B, Mulidzi R, Lewu FB. 2020. Management impact and benefit of cover crops on soil quality: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 204: 104717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104717
Andrade FH, Calvino P, Cirilo A, Barbieri P. 2002. Yield responses to narrow rows depend on increased radiation interception. Agron J. 94(5):975-980. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.9750
Arbuckle JG, Roesch-McNally G. 2015. Cover crop adoption in Iowa: the role of perceived practice characteristics. J Soils Water Conserv. 70(6): 418-429. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.70.6.418
Barbieri PA, Rozas HRS, Andrade FH, Echeverria HE. 2000. Row spacing effects at different levels of nitrogen availability in maize. Agron J. 92(2): 283-288. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.922283x
Bates LS, Waldren RPa, Teare ID. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 39: 205-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
Bradford MM. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 72(1-2): 248-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3
Brennan EB, Acosta-Martinez V. 2019. Cover crops and compost influence soil enzymes during six years of tillage-intensive, organic vegetable production. Soil Biol Biochem. 83(3): 624-637. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.12.0412
Chapepa B, Mudada N, Mapuranga R. 2020. The impact of plant density and spatial arrangement on light interception on cotton crop and seed cotton yield: an overview. J Cotton Res. 3: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-020-00059-z
Chauhan BS. 2020. Grand challenges in weed management. Front Agron. 1: 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2019.00003
Dauphinee AN, Fletcher JI, Denbigh GL, Lacroix CR, Gunawardena AN. 2017. Remodelling of lace plant leaves: antioxidants and ROS are key regulators of programmed cell death. Planta. 246: 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-017-2683-y
Delgado JA, Floyd B, Brandt AD, D’Adamo R. 2021. Use of narrow rows in sprinkler-irrigated corn systems to increase grain yields, aboveground biomass, and water and nitrogen use efficiencies. Agronomy. 12(1): 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010082
Digrado A, Ainsworth EA. 2023. Modifying canopy architecture to optimize photosynthesis in crops. Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2022.0119.11
Duiker SW, Curran WS. 2005. Rye cover crop management for corn production in the northern mid‐Atlantic region. Agron J. 97(5): 1413-1418. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0317
El-Sayed AE-WA, Khaffagy AE, Shaheen FEM, Hafez Y, Abdelaal K, Hassan FAS, Elhag DA. 2021. Comparative efficiency of some herbicides on weed control, quality, yield and its components in maize (Zea mays L.). Fresenius Environ Bull. 30(5): 5340-5349.
Fakhari R, Nezamabadi N, Moharramnejad S, Didehbaz Moghanlo G. 2024. The impact of herbicides on weed control and physiological traits in corn (Zea mays L.). J Plant Physiol Breed. 14(2): 169-179. https://doi.org/10.22034/jppb.2024.60403.1329
Gao J, Lei M, Yang L, Wang P, Tao H, Huang S. 2021. Reduced row spacing improved yield by optimizing root distribution in maize. Eur J Agron. 127: 126291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126291
Ge XL, Chen YB, Wang Y, Wang BC, Chao Q, Yu Y, Gong XJ, Hao YB, Li L, Jiang YB, et al. 2022. Photosynthetic mechanism of high yield under an improved wide–narrow row planting pattern in maize. Photosynthetica. 60(3): 465-475. https://doi.org/10.32615/ps.2022.032
Hanif S, Saleem MF, Sarwar M, Irshad M, Shakoor A, Wahid MA, Khan HZ. 2021. Biochemically triggered heat and drought stress tolerance in rice by proline application. Plant Growth Regul. 40: 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-020-10095-3
Hasan M, Mokhtar AS, Mahmud K, Berahim Z, Rosli AM, Hamdan H, Motmainna M, Ahmad-Hamdani MS. 2022. Physiological and biochemical responses of selected weed and crop species to the plant-based bioherbicide Weedlock. Sci Rep. 12(1): 19602. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24144-2
Ibrahim MF, Ali MM, Lamlom SF, Kalaji HM, Yousef AF. 2022. Climate change necessitates a change in the cultivation date of caraway (Carum carvi L.). J Water Land Dev. 54: 39-49. https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2022.141553
Johnson GA, Hoverstad TR. 2002. Effect of row spacing and herbicide application timing on weed control and grain yield in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16(3): 548-553. https://doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0548:EORSAH]2.0.CO;2
Kaspar TC, Radke JK, Laflen JM. 2001. Small grain cover crops and wheel traffic effects on infiltration, runoff, and erosion. J Soils Water Conserv. 56(2): 160-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224561.2001.12457370
Kaspar TC, Jaynes DB, Parkin TB, Moorman TB. 2007. Rye cover crop and gamagrass strip effects on no3 concentration and load in tile drainage. J Environ Qual. 36(5): 1503-1511. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0468
Kaspar TC, Jaynes DB, Parkin TB, Moorman TB, Singer JW. 2012. Effectiveness of oat and rye cover crops in reducing nitrate losses in drainage water. Agric Water Manag. 110: 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.010
Kessavalou A, Walters DT. 1999. Winter rye cover crop following soybean under conservation tillage: Residual soil nitrate. Agron J. 91(4): 643-649. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1999.914643x
Kırıcı S, Çalışkan T, Hatipoğlu R, Çeliktaş V, Otu Borlu H. 2021. Effects of weed control on seed yield and fatty oil ratio of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Turk J Field Crops. 26(2): 226-234. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.1004955
Lee EA, Tollenaar M. 2007. Physiological basis of successful breeding strategies for maize grain yield. Crop Sci. 47: 202-215. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2007.04.0010IPBS
Moharramnejad S, Valizadeh M. 2019. A key response of grain yield and superoxide dismutase in maize (Zea mays L.) to water deficit stress. J Plant Physiol Breed. 9(2):77-84. https://doi.org/10.22034/jppb.2019.10606
Moharramnejad S, Sofalian O, Valizadeh M, Asgari A, Shiri M, Ashraf, M. 2019. Response of maize to field drought stress: oxidative defense system, osmolytes’ accumulation and photosynthetic pigments. Pak J Bot. 51(3): 799-807. https://doi.org/10.30848/PJB2019-3(1)
Moore EB, Wiedenhoeft MH, Kaspar TC, Cambardella CA. 2014. Rye cover crop effects on soil quality in no‐till corn silage–soybean cropping systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 78(3): 968-976. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.09.0401
Munawar A, Blevins RL, Frye WW, Saul MR. 1990. Tillage and cover crop management for soil water conservation. Agron J. 82(4): 773-777. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1990.00021962008200040024x
Nelson KA, Dudenhoeffer CJ, Nelson S, Harder D. 2015. Corn hybrid, row spacing, and seeding rate effects on yield in upstate Missouri. Crop Forage Turf Man. 1(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010082
Noreen Z, Ashraf M. 2009. Assessment of variation in antioxidative defense system in salt-treated pea (Pisum sativum) cultivars and its putative use as salinity tolerance markers. J Plant Physiol. 166(16): 1764-1774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2009.05.005
Porter PM, Hicks DR, Lueschen WE, Ford JH, Warnes DD, Hoverstad TR. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern corn belt. J Prod Agric. 10(2): 293-300. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1997.0293
Raymond FD, Alley MM, Parrish DJ, Thomason WE. 2009. Plant density and hybrid impacts on corn grain and forage yield and nutrient uptake. J Plant Nutr. 32(3): 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160802660727
Ren H, Li Z, Cheng Y, Zhang J, Liu P, Li R, Yang Q, Dong S, Zhang J, Zhao B. 2020. Narrowing yield gaps and enhancing nitrogen utilization for summer maize (Zea mays L) by combining the effects of varying nitrogen fertilizer input and planting density in DSSAT simulations. Front Plant Sci. 11: 560466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.560466
Robles M, Ciampitti IA, Vyn TJ. 2012. Responses of maize hybrids to twin‐row spatial arrangement at multiple plant densities. Agron J. 104(6): 1747-1756. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0231
Sergiev I, Todorova D, Shopova E, Brankova L, Jankauskienė J, Jurkonienė S, Gavelienė V, Mockevičiūtė R. 2020. Assessment of synthetic auxin type compounds as potential modulators of herbicide action in Pisum sativum L. Biologia. 75: 1845-1853. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00557-0
Shapiro CA, Wortmann CS. 2006. Corn response to nitrogen rate, row spacing, and plant density in eastern Nebraska. Agron J. 98(3): 529-535. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0137
Shilling DG, Liebl RA, Worsham AD. 1985. Rye (Secale cereale L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) mulch: the suppression of certain broadleaved weeds and the isolation and identification of phytotoxins. In:. Thompson AC (ed.) The chemistry of allelopathy. Washington, DC: ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-1985-0268.ch017
Soltis DE, Soltis PS. 1990. Isozymes in plant biology. London: Chapman and Hall, 259 pp.
Talaat NB, Shawky BT, Ibrahim AS. 2015. Alleviation of drought-induced oxidative stress in maize (Zea mays L.) plants by dual application of 24-epibrassinolide and spermine. Environ Exp Bot. 113: 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2015.01.006
Tang L, Yin D, Chen C, Yu D, Han W. 2019. Optimal design of plant canopy based on light interception: A case study with loquat. Front Plant Sci. 10: 364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00364
Teasdale JR, Beste CE, Potts WE. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39(2): 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500071460
Tian C, Han J, Li J, Zhen G, Liu Y, Lu Y, Wang Y, Wang Y. 2019. Effects of row direction and row spacing on maize leaf senescence. PLoS One. 14(4): e0215330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215330
Tollenaar M, Lee EA. 2002. Yield potential, yield stability and stress tolerance in maize. Field Crops Res. 75(2-3): 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00024-2
Vesna D, Zeljko D, Biljana J, Milena S, Margita D, Milan B, Jelena M. 2016. Cover crops effect on status of main antioxidants in sweet maize. Seventh International Scientific Agricultural Symposium "Agrosym 2016", October 6- 9, Jahorina, Republic of Serbia, 386-391. https://doi.org/10.3390/0.7251/AGRENG1607053
Wang L, Riaz M, Song B, Song X, Huang W, Bai X, Zhao X. 2022. Study on phytotoxicity evaluation and physiological properties of nicosulfuron on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Front Plant Sci. 13: 998867. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.998867
Wei L, Shao Y, Chang X, Wang HZ, Qi S, Wang TC. 2012. Effects of planting methods on canopy structure parameters of summer maize under high-density conditions. J Henan Agric Univ. 1: 1-6 (In Chinese with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1006.2010.01226
Widdicombe WD, Thelen KD. 2002. Row width and plant density effects on corn grain production in the northern corn belt. Agron J. 94(5): 1020-1023. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.1020
Williams MK, Heiniger RW, Everman WJ, Jordan DL. 2014. Weed control and corn (Zea mays) response to planting pattern and herbicide program with high seeding rates in North Carolina. Adv Agric. 1: 261628. https://doi.org/ 10.1155/2014/261628
Xue G, Wu J, Zhou B, Zhu X, Zeng J, Ma Y, Wang Y, Jia H. 2023. Effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic fluorescence characteristics of Castanopsis hystrix seedlings of top community-building species in southern subtropical China. Forests. 14(8): 1659. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14081659
Yadete Urge E. 2022. Nitrogen fertilizer split application response on late maturing maize (Zea mays L.) at Banshure and Omonada Woredas, Southwest Ethiopia. Al-Qadisiyah J Agric Sci. 12(1): 167-172. https://doi.org/10.33794/qjas.2022.133975.1044
Yuan L, Geng Y, Ali S. 2023. Planting models and mulching materials management to improve antioxidant defense system, grain hormone balance and production of maize in semi-arid regions. J Plant Physiol. 280: 153897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2022.153897
Zhang Y, Henke M, Buck-Sorlin GH, Li Y, Xu H, Liu X, Li T. 2021. Estimating canopy leaf physiology of tomato plants grown in a solar greenhouse: Evidence from simulations of light and thermal microclimate using a functional-structural plant model. Agric For Meteorol. 307: 108494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108494
Zheng Feina, Chu Jinpeng, Zhang Xiu, Fei Liwei, Dai Xinglong, He Mingrong. 2020. Interactive effects of sowing pattern and planting density on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in large spike wheat cultivar. Acta Agron Sin. 46(3): 423-431. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1006.2020.91046
Zheng H, Wang J, Cui Y, Guan Z, Yang L, Tang Q, Sun Y, Yang H, Wen X, Mei N. 2022. Effects of row spacing and planting pattern on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence, and related enzyme activities of maize ear leaf in maize–soybean intercropping. Agronomy 12(10): 2503. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102503
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 179 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 185 |
||