اثر فنی و اقتصادی ماشین کولتیواتور درون ردیفی در کنترل علف های هرز مزارع پنبه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی فارس

2 سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی

10.22092/ijcr.2023.361531.1192

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: استفاده مناسب از روش‌های مکانیکی کنترل علف‌های هرز با استفاده از کولتیواتورهای مناسب در زراعت پنبه، افزایش عملکرد، کاهش هزینه‌های کارگری و در نهایت افزایش درآمد را به دنبال دارد. در این تحقیق ساخت و ارزیابی ماشین کولتیواتور درون ردیفی (انجام توام کنترل علف‌های هرز بین و درون ردیف‌ها) در کاشت پنبه و مقایسه آن با روش مرسوم کنترل علف‌های هرز با کولتیواتور پنجه‌غازی و روش کنترل شیمیایی بررسی گردید.
مواد و روش‌ها: آزمایش در ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی داراب استان فارس با هشت تیمار و سه تکرار در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی انجام شد. تیمارهای آزمایش، استفاده از کولتیواتور درون ردیفی و علف‌کش تریفلورالین قبل از کاشت (T1)، کولتیواتور پنجه‌غازی + علف‌کش تریفلورالین قبل از کاشت (T2)، کولتیواتور درون ردیفی و علف‌کش تریفلورالین بعد از کاشت (T3)، کولتیواتور پنجه‌غازی + علف‌کش تریفلورالین بعد از کاشت (T4)، کولتیواتور درون ردیفی (T5)، علف‌کش انووک (T6)، کنترل تمام فصل علف‌های هرز (T7) و عدم کنترل علف‌های هرز (T8) بود. عملیات کاشت پنبه با بذر گلستان و به مقدار 20 کیلوگرم بر هکتار با ردیف‌کار پنوماتیک انجام شد. میزان مصرف علف‌کش تریفلورالین و انووک به ترتیب 5/2 لیتر بر هکتار و 15 گرم بر هکتار در نظر گرفته شد. پارامترهای کنترل علف‌های هرز، خاک‌دهی پای بوته، عملکرد و اجزاء عملکرد اندازه‌گیری و ارزیابی اقتصادی انجام شد.
یافته‌ها: حداکثر کنترل علف‌های هرز در استفاده از کولتیواتور درون ردیفی و علف‌کش تریفلورالین قبل از کاشت با 78/92 درصد به دست آمد. این تیمار تفاوت معنی‌داری را با کنترل تمام فصل علف‌های هرز پنبه به وسیله کارگر نداشت. استفاده از کولتیواتور پنجه‌غازی موجب افزایش خاک‌دهی پای بوته‌های پنبه به میزان 4/67 درصد گردید. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که استفاده از علف‌کش تریفلورالین قبل از کاشت، عملکرد وش بیشتری را نسبت به استفاده از این علف‌کش بعد از کاشت به همراه استفاده از کولتیواتور درون ردیفی دارد. تجزیه و تحلیل اقتصادی نیز نشان داد که بازده برنامه‌ای استفاده از کولتیواتور درون ردیفی در مقایسه با کولتیواتور پنجه-غازی در حدود 67 درصد است.
 نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به نتایج به دست آمده در این آزمایش، کارآیی استفاده از کولتیواتور درون ردیفی نسبت به کولتیواتور پنجه‌غازی مشاهده گردید. نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که کنترل مکانیکی و شیمیایی علف‌های هرز در پنبه، روشی موثر است. استفاده از کولتیواتور درون ردیفی، روشی جدید در کنترل علف‌های هرز مزارع پنبه نسبت به روش استفاده از کولتیواتور پنجه‌غازی (روش مرسوم) در هر دو زمینه فنی و اقتصادی است. کنترل علف‌های هرز درون ردیف با کولتیواتور درون ردیفی، مزیت کاهش کارگر و تردد تراکتور و ماشین‌های کشاورزی و نیز افزایش عملکرد پنبه را به دنبال داشته و برای مناطق پنبه خیز کشور با کاشت ردیفی قابل توصیه است. 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Technical and economical effect of in-row cultivator machine in controlling weeds in cotton fields

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad-Ali Behaeen 1
  • Dadgar Mohammadi 2
1 Research and Training Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources in Fars province
2 Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (Areeo)
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: The use of mechanical methods for weed control with suitable cultivators increases yield, reduces labor costs, and ultimately enhances income in cotton fields. This research focuses on the construction and evaluation of an in-row cultivator machine (for controlling weeds both between and within rows) and compares it with the conventional method of weed control using a sweep cultivator and a chemical control method in cotton planting.
Materials and methods: The experiment was conducted as randomized complete block design (RCBD) with eight treatments and three replications at Darab Agricultural Research Station in Fars province. Test treatments were using in-row cultivator and trifluralin herbicide before planting (T1), sweep cultivator and trifluralin herbicide before planting (T2), in-row cultivator and trifluralin herbicide afte planting (T3), sweep cultivator and trifluralin herbicide after planting (T4), in-row cultivator (T5), envok herbicide (T6), full-season control of weeds (T7) and no weed control (T8). The cotton planting operation was done with Golestan seeds and in the amount of 20 kg/ha with a pneumatic planter. The consumption rate of trifluralin and envok herbicides was considered 2.5 lit/ha and 15 gr/ha, respectively. The parameters of weed control, soiling of plant, yield and yield components were measured and economical evaluation was done.
Results: Maximum weed control (92.78%) was achieved using the in-row cultivator and trifluralin herbicide before planting, which did not differ significantly from the full-season manual control treatment. The use of a sweep cultivator increased plant soiling by 67.4%. Results also indicated that applying trifluralin herbicide before planting resulted in higher cotton yields compared to applying it after planting in conjunction with the in-row cultivator. Economic analysis revealed that the gross margin of using the in-row cultivator was about 67% higher than that of the conventional sweep cultivator.
Conclusion: The results of this experiment demonstrate the efficiency of the in-row cultivator compared to the sweep cultivator. This research shows that both mechanical and chemical weed control methods are effective in cotton cultivation. The in-row cultivator, a new method for controlling weeds in cotton fields, proves superior to the conventional sweep cultivator both technically and economically. In-row weed control with the in-row cultivator reduces labor and the traffic of tractors and agricultural machines, increases cotton yield, and is recommended for cotton-growing areas with row planting.
    

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Mechanical control
  • soiling of plant
  • sweep
  • cotton yield

مراجع

  1. Afzalinia, S., Niroomand-jahromi, M., and Mohammadi, D. 2008. The effect of row crop cultivator types on sugar beet yield and quality. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 9(2): 57-68.
  2. Alba, O.S., Syrovy, L.D., Duddu, H.S.N., and Shirtliffe, S.J. 2020. Increased seeding rate and multiple methods of mechanical weed control reduce weed biomass in a poorly competitive organic crop. Field Crop Research. 245: 107648.
  3. Ali, A., Streibig, J., and Andreasen, C. 2013a. Yield loss prediction models based on early estimation of weed pressure. Crop Protection. 53: 125-131.
  4. Ali, H., Abid, S.A., Ahmad,S., Sarwar, N., Arooj, M., Mahmmod, A., and Shahzad, A.N. 2013b. Integrated weed management in cotton cultivated in the alternate-furrow planting system. Journal of food, Agriculture and Environment. 11(3, 4): 1664-1669.
  5. Ali, H., Abid, S.A., Ahmad, S., Sarwar, N., Arooj, M., Mahmmod, A., and Shahzad, A.N. 2013c. Impact of integrated weed management on flat-sown cotton (Gossypium Hirstum). The Journal of Animal & Plant Science. 23(4): 1185-1192.
  6. Ascard, J., Fogelberg, F. 2002. Mechanical intra-row weed control in organic onion production. In: Proceedings 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, p 125. Available on-line at: http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.
  7. Bakhtiari, M.R., and Jahedi, A. 2014. Investigating combination of chemical and mechanical weed control methods in potato farms. Pp. 4236-4245. In: Proceedings 8thNational Congress of Agricultural Machine Engineering (Biosystems) and Mechanization, 29-31 Jan., Mashhad, Iran. (in Persian with English abstract)
  8. Behaeen, M.A., Shahrokhnia, M.A, Bazrafshan, M, Zare, E., and Zare, M. 2021. Construction and evaluation of a soil surface compactor system and attached to row crop cultivator in order to increase water productivity in sugar beet. Final report of Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, No. 60527. (in Persian with English abstract)
  9. Behaeen, M.A., Fereidoonpur, M., and Hekmat, M.H. 2018. Evaluation of in-row cultivator and comparison with conventional cultivator on weed control and yield in cotton field. Iranian Journal of Cotton Research. 5(2): 91-108. (in Persian with English abstract)
  10. Behaeen, M.A., and Talati, M.H. 2011. Improvement and evaluation of row cultivator to in-row cultivator and comparison with conventional methods in weed control on corn farm. Final report of Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, No. 85/1525. (in Persian with English abstract)
  11. Behaeen, M.A., Shaker, M., Shiravanian, A.R., and Jokar, L. 2009. Comparison and evaluation of two types of strip sprayers with broadcast spraying on corn crop. Final report of Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, No. 87/1565. (in Persian with English abstract)
  12. Blaise, D., and Ravindran, C.D. 2003. Influence of tillage and residue management on growth and yield of cotton grown on a vertisol over 5 years in a semi-arid region of India. Soil and Tillage Research. 70(2): 163-173.
  13. Carballido, J., Rodriguez, a., Aguera, J., and Perez-Ruiz. 2013. Field sprayer for inter- and intra-row weed control: performance and labor saving. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 11(3): 642-651.
  14. Chandel, N.S., Chandel, A.K., Raul, A.K., Solanke, K.R., and Mehta, C.R. 2021. An integrated inter- and intra-row weeding systems for row crops. Crop Protection. 145: 105-114.
  15. Chandel, N.S., Tripathi, H., and Tewari, V.K. 2015. Evaluation and adoption scope of rotary power weeder for weed management in vegetable crops. International Journal of Bio-resource and stress management. 6(4): 513-516.
  16. Datta, A., Ullah, H., Tursun, N., Pornprom, T., Knezevic, Z., and Chauhan, B.S. 2017. Managing weeds using crop competition in soybean [Glycine Max (L.) Merr.]. Crop Protection. 95: 60-68.
  17. Deborah, S. 2004. Evaluation of in-row weed cultivators in organic soybeans and corn. Final Project Report, Ohio State University.
  18. Dylan, J.L., and Hardaker, B.J. 2019. Farm management research for small farmer development. Translated by Amir Hossein Chizari, Islamic Azad University Press, Garmsar branch, 288 p.
  19. Gharde, Y., Singh, P.K., Dubey, R.P., and Gupta, P.K. 2018. Assessment of yield and economic losses in Agricultural due to weed in India. Crop Protection. 107: 12-18.
  20. Fennimore, S.A., Smith, R.F., Tourte, L., LeStrange, M., and Rachuy, J.S. 2014. Evaluation and economics of a rotating cultivator in Bok Choy, celery, lettuce, and Radicchio. Weed Technology. 28, 176-188.
  21. Ferrel, J.A., MacDonald, G.E. and Brecke, B.J. 2007. Weed management in soybeans. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 1-11, accessed, November 2007. http://edis.ifas.ufl
  22. Fogelberg, F., and Dock Gustavsson, A.M. 1999. Mechanical damage to annual weeds and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Research. 39: 469-479.
  23. Leela Rani, P., Yakadri, M., and Ramprakash, T. 2016. Effect of integrated weed management practices on growth and yield of bt-cotton in Telangana State, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 5(2): 17-25.
  24. Lichtenhahn, M., Koller, M., Dierauer, H., and Baumann, D. 2005. Weed control in Organic Vegetable Cultivation. Available at:. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland, p. 12 http://www.organicagcentre.ca/ Docs/FiBL_WeedCtrl_Vegetables.pdf.
  25. Malarkodi, N. 2017. Integrated weed managementeffect on weeds and seed cotton yield. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and biotechnology. 2(2): 597-606.
  26. Mario, A.R., Robert, G.W., and Alex, R.M. 2002. Effect of in-row cultivation, herbicides, and dry bean canopy on weed seedling emergence. Weed Science. 50(3): 370-377.
  27. Melander, B.O., Jabran, K., Notaris, C.D., Znova, L., Green, O., and Olsen, J.E. 2018. Inter-row hoeing for weed control in organic spring cereals- influence of inter-row spacing and nitrogen rate. European Journal of Agronomy. 101: 49-56.
  28. Melander, B., Lattanzi, B., and Pannacci, E. 2015. Intelligent versus non-intelligent mechanical intra-row weed control in transplanted onion and cabbage. Crop Protection. 72, 1-8.
  29. Melander, B., Holts, N., Rasmussen, I.A., and Hansen, P.K. 2012. Direct control of perennial weeds between crops-implications for organic farming. Crop Protection. 40, 36-42.
  30. Muhammad, A.N., Muhammad, I., Muhammad, A., Asif, T., and Khuram, M. 2013. Effect of different weed control practices and sowing methods on weeds and yield of cotton. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 45(4): 1321-1328.
  31. Pannacci, E., Lattanzi, B., and Tei, F. 2017. Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: A review. Crop Protection, 96: 44-58.
  32. Pannacci, E., Tei, F. 2014. Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on weed control, weed seed rain and crop yield in maize, sunflower and soybean. Crop Protection. 64, 51-59.
  33. Perez-Ruiz, M., Slaughter, D.S., Fathallah, F.A., Gilver, C.J., Miller, B.J. 2014. Co-robotic intera-row weed control system. Biosystems Engineering. 126: 45-55.
  34. Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Di Ciolo, S., Verna, P., Casaccia, D., and Recinelli, E. 2005. La gestione fisica delle infestanti su carota biologica e su altre colture tipiche dell’altopiano del Fucino (a cura di Peruzzi A). Stamperia Editoriale Pisana, Agnano Pisano, Italy, p. 143.
  35. Prabhu, G. Halepyati, A.S., Pujari, B.T., and Desai, B.K. 2012. Weed management in bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum ) under irrigation. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 25(2): 183-186.
  36. Raja, R., Nguyen, T.T., Slaughter, D.C., and Fennimore, S.A. 2020. Real-time weed-crop classification and localosation technique for robotic weed control in lettuce. Biosystems Engineering. 192: 257-274.
  37. Remesan, R., Roopesh, M.S., Remya, N., and Preman, P.S. 2007. Wet land paddy weeding-a comprehensive comparative study from South India. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGRE journal. 9: 1-21.
  38. Sathishkumar, A., Srinivasan, G., Subramanain, E., and Rajesh, P. 2020. Weed management in cotton:A review. Agricultural reviews. 10.18805/ag.R.2080: 1-10.
  39. Shrinivasa, D.J., and Kumar, S. 2017. Devlopment and evaluation of mechanical weeder for finger millet crop. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. 10(2): 217-221.
  40. Soliman, I.E., Khaffagy, A.E., Azza E., Ghalwash, A.M., and Amal, S.A.E. 2013. Effect of some weed control packages on seed cotton yield and fiber properties of some cotton genotypes (Gossypium barbadense, L.) and its associated weeds. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research. 92(2): 605-625.
  41. Tewari, V.K., Kumar, A.A., Nare, B., Parkash, S., and Tyagi, A. 2014. Microcontroller based roller contact type herbicide applicator for weed control under row crops. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture. 104: 40-45.
  42. Tillett, N.D., Hague, T., Grundy, A.C., and Dedousis, A.P. 2008. Mechanical within-row weed control for transplanted crops using computer vision. Biosystems. Engineering. 99, 171-178.
  43. Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., Achten, V.I.J.M., Lotz, L.P.A., Fogelberg, f., and Melander, B., 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Reearch. 48: 215-224.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار