Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:38:16.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intercropping sweet corn with summer savory to increase weed suppression and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2022

Ruhollah Naderi Open the ORCID record for Ruhollah Naderi [Opens in a new window] ,
Farzad Bijani Open the ORCID record for Farzad Bijani [Opens in a new window] ,
Philip S. R. Weyl Open the ORCID record for Philip S. R. Weyl [Opens in a new window]  and
Heinz Mueller-Schaerer Open the ORCID record for Heinz Mueller-Schaerer [Opens in a new window]
Ruhollah Naderi*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Farzad Bijani
Affiliation:
Former MSc student, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Philip S. R. Weyl
Affiliation:
Senior Scientist, CABI, Delémont, Switzerland
Heinz Mueller-Schaerer
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Biology/Ecology and Evolution, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Ruhollah Naderi, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 2-yr field experiment was conducted to explore the effects on weed growth and crop productivity of intercropping sweet corn with summer savory. Five cropping patterns were set up: sweet corn alone (16 seeds m−2, in rows, 75 cm apart), summer savory alone (40 seeds m−2, broadcasted), and three intercropping ratios of 75% sweet corn, 25% summer savory (75%C:25%S), 50%C:50%S, and 25%C:75%S, of plant densities used in respective monocultures. When intercropping, weed biomass decreased as the proportion of summer savory increased, with a reduction of 48%, 61%, and 70 % in 75%C:25%S, 50%C:50%S, and 25%C:75%S, respectively, compared to sweet corn alone. In parallel, sweet corn yield was higher under intercropping compared to its monoculture and increased as the proportion of summer savory decreased, with yield increases compared to corn monoculture of 38%, 32%, and 15% in the first year and 48%, 23%, and 14 % in the second year in 75%C:25%S, 50%C:50%S, and 25%C:75%S, respectively. However, the intercropping pattern had the opposite effect on summer savory yield, with a significant reduction in yield with an increasing ratio of sweet corn. Our results indicate that intercropping sweet corn with summer savory can increase both weed suppression and yield of sweet corn compared to crop monoculture.

Keywords

sweet cornZea mays L. saccharatasummer savorySatureja hortensis L.Sustainable productionecological weed managementcrop diversity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 544 - 547
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida

References

Abbes, Z, Trabelsi, I, Kharrat, M, Amri, M (2019) Intercropping with fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) enhanced seed yield and reduced Orobanche foetida infestation in faba bean (Vicia faba). Biol Agric Hort 35:238–247 Google Scholar
Bybee-Finley, KA, Mirsky, SB, Ryan, MR (2017) Crop biomass not species richness drives weed suppression in warm-season annual grass–legume intercrops in the Northeast. Weed Sci 65:669–680 Google Scholar
Chaimovitsh, D, Shachter, A, Abu-Abied, M, Rubin, B, Sadot, E, Dudai, N (2017) Herbicidal activity of monoterpenes is associated with disruption of microtubule functionality and membrane integrity. Weed Sci 65:19–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ðikic´ M (2005) Allelopathic effect of co germination of aromatic and medicinal plants and weed. Herbologia 6:15–24 Google Scholar
Fallah, S, Rostaei, M, Lorigooini, Z, Abbasi Surki, A (2018) Chemical compositions of essential oil and antioxidant activity of dragonhead (Dracocephalum moldavica) in sole crop and dragonhead-soybean (Glycine max) intercropping system under organic manure and chemical fertilizers. Ind Crop Prod 115:158–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Santos, B, Antonio Corrêa, M, Chorill, M (2015) Sustainability, natural and organic cosmetics: consumer, products, efficacy, toxicological and regulatory considerations. SciELO Anal 51:17–26 Google Scholar
[HMSO] Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1998) British Pharmacopoeia. Vol. 2. London: HMSO Google Scholar
Jamshidi Kia, F, Lorigooini, Z, Amini-Khoei, H (2018) Medicinal plants: past history and future perspective. J Herbmed Pharmacol 7:1–7 Google Scholar
Liebman, M, Dyck, E (1993) Crop-rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol Appl 3:92–122 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lithourgidis, AS, Vlachostergios, DN, Dordas, CA, Damalas, CA (2011) Dry matter yield, nitrogen content and competition in pea-cereal intercropping system. Eur J Agron 34:287–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesgaran, MB, Mashhadi, HR, Khosravi, M, Zand, E, Mohammad-Alizadeh, H (2008) Weed community response to saffron–black zira intercropping. Weed Sci 56:400–407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E, Amirni, R, Amani Machiani, M, Javanmard, A, Maggi, F, Morshedloo, M (2020) Intercropping fennel (Foeniculum vulgare L.) with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) as affected by PGPR inoculation: a strategy for improving yield, essential oil and fatty acid composition. Sci Hortic 261:108951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, R, Banik, P (2014) Baby corn-legumes intercropping system: II Weed dynamics and community structure. Wageningen J Life Sci 67:11–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skubij, N, Dzida, K (2019) Essential oil composition of summer savory (Satureja hortensis L.) cv. Saturn depending on nitrogen nutrition and plant development phases in raw material cultivated for industrial use. Ind Crop Prod 135:260–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltz, E, Nadeau, E (2014) Effects of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality and soil residual N in organically grown forage maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crop Res 169:21–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1991) Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szumigalski, A, Van Acker, R (2005) Weed suppression and crop production in annual intercrops. Weed Sci 53:813–825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taban, A, Saharkhiz, MJ, Hadian, J (2013) Allelopathic potential of essential oils from four Satureja spp. Biol Agric Hortic 29:244–257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Y, Yu, L, Guan, A, Zhou, X, Wang, Z, Gou, Y, Wang, J (2017) Soil mineral nitrogen and yield-scaled soil N2O emissions lowered by reducing nitrogen application and intercropping with soybean for sweet maize production in southern China. J Integrated Agric 16:2586–2596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerarathne, LV, Marambe, Y, Chauhan, B (2017) Does intercropping play a role in alleviating weeds in cassava as a non-chemical tool of weed management? A review. Crop Protect 95:81–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM (2008) Sweet corn growth and yield responses to planting dates of the North Central United States. Hort Sci 43:1775–1779 Google Scholar
Williams, MM (2014) Few crop traits accurately predict variables important to productivity of processing sweet corn. Field Crop Res 157:20–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM, Rick, A, Boydston, R, Peachey, E, Robinson, D (2011) Performance consistency of reduced atrazine use in sweet corn. Field Crop Res 121:96–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S, Han, C, Zhang, C, Kuchkarova, N, Wei, C, Zhang, C, Shao, H (2021) Allelopathic, phytotoxic, and insecticidal effects of Thymus proximus Serg. essential oil and its major constituents. Front Plant Sci 12:689875 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed