١٤٠١ ناتسبات - ۲ هرامش ٢٤ هرود

24 2

1401

658 - 645

DOI:10.22059/jci.2021.308374.2436

: ! "#

) Amaranthus retroflexus L.

(

) Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv (

) Foeniculum vulgare Mill.

(

1 2

*

" # 3 4

1 .

& ' ( ( ) * +, - (. /# 0"1 2/3 . 0"1 /3 . ( # ("4/3 .

2 .

& ' ( ( ) * +, - (. /# 0"1 2/3 . 0"1 /3 . 5 ' .

3 .

& ' ( ( ) * +, - (. /# 0"1 2/3 . 0"1 /3 . 5 .

4 .

"1 2/3 . 0"1 /3 3 6 , 0"1 5 '

& ' ( ( ) * +, - (. /# 0 .

: 8- 9 ' :' ; 27

/ 05 / 1399 : 8- A 'B :' ;

24 / 03 / 1400

!

"

# $

%

&

'(

)

* + , (

( +- . / 0 % 1

+ 2 +3 4 - 5 6 * -

7 8 79 :

;5 ( <

- / => ? 5 5 <9 @ A< < 5BC D E5 - 5 D 2 F ,

G H > I 2 ' J9 !

6 - ! K ' 9

- 1396 79 P0- - ' $ Q J9 ! . &

+< 5 R) # S,) E5 -

? J

79 P0- - 5 (

:

;5 ( +< 5 R) # S,) D 2 <

? J

. ( Q % ) 6 * 2230

5 ( J6 @ 9 Q

, %

* ( , 5 ) 4 - +-

+< '( X $ .

? J

:

;5 ( 79 5 5 R) # S,

+<

? J

#E5 - I

Y 1 / 30 # 9 / 62 5 7 / 75 6 * Q 9 , 5

5 / 24 # 2 / 26 5 5 / 29 4 - , Q 9 ,

. $ @ X $ +=

: J 2 F 2 I '( 5 ^ E5 - += ;5 (

5 / 14

? J

E5 -

5 7 / 7

? J

: Y ;5 ( 50

6 * +! ,

$ .

#79 #'( #4 - :

J 2 F 2 # .

Effect of Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and Barnyard Grass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv) Interference on Yield and Essential

Oil of Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.)

Seyyede Rogheyye Hoseeini Valiki¹, Rahmat Abbasi^2*, Hemmatollah Pirdashti³, Vahid Akbarpour⁴ 1. Ph.D. Student, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Science, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.

2. Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Science, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.

3. Professor, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Science, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.

4. Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture Science, Faculty of Crop Science, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran.

Received: August 17, 2020 Accepted: June 14, 2021

Abstract

Weed infestation in arable lands is much more than one species. Thus, it is important to pay attention to the interaction of multy species of weeds. To study the effect of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv) interference on yield and essential oil of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.), an experiment has been done in Research field of Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University during 2017. It has been arranged in a factorial arrangement based on randomized complete block design with three replications with the experimental factors being three densities of redroot pigweed (0, 4, and 8 plants m^-2) and three densities of barnyardgrass (0, 4, and 8 plants m^-2). The highest grain yield (2230 kg ha^-1) and essential oil content (2 %) are obtained at weed free plots. The density of 8 redroot pigweed plants m^-2 at simultaneous interference with 0, 4, and 8 barnyard grass m^-2 reduce grain yield by 30.1%, 62.9%, and 75.7%, and essential oil content by 24.5%, 26.2%, and 29.5%, respectively, compared with weed free plots. The coefficient of redroot pigweed competitivity is predicted to be higher than barnyardgrass, and the interference of 14.5 barnyardgrass plants m^-2 or 7.7 redroot pigweed plants m^-2 decreases fennel grain yield by 50%.

Keywords: Density, essential oil, interference, weed competitivity, weed free

1 .

(Foeniculum vulgare L.)

8 J) ( 51

* 2 5 5 5 8 % 8

8 R& 5

) +-

Omidbaigi, 2007

.(

5 % 4 -

Q 30 $ ' 6< C C I 9 _

9 7R I 9 % % ' J 5 % * #8 6 ! # J

6 5 9

$ )

Rather et al., 2016

@ * .(

6 C

< 5 5 `

4 - +- 9

? , -5

ab 8 8

# ! - cS

5 D! $

SJ- ) $

Damjanovic et al., 2005

.(

& dD&

@ eC

@ 1 5

f 3 8 5 <9 & R 5 g ) $

Olson & Nalewaja, 2004

.(

:

;5 (

<

) D 2

Amaranthus retroflexus L.

E5 - #(

)

Echinochloa crus-galii L.

* - 5 ( )

Chenopodium

album

( 7R % _ D

$

)

Rahimi et al., 2015

.(

:

;5 (

<

" #D 2

J - :

2;5 ( 5

8

'6<

$ J( $ 8 ( _ D - ) +-

Horak & Loughin, 2000

: .(

h` ;5 (

#? fe& + 2 i 5 $ Jj '`

I& 8 5 $ Q 9 ) $

Ronald,

.(2000

" #E5 - 5 J -

( 9 R)

3Fkg l6 e 9 +-

Q . $ + > 5 5 @ J/ `

B 5 .+- +-5 E5 -

e 8

> #? - $ # e f ( # = + 5 m 5 C J! / -5 Q9

$

) 9

Hamill et al., 2002

.(

1. Apiaceae

2. Amaranthaceae 3. Poaceae

5 '` G $

# $ mJ-

$ 5 #f 0 Q$ C i @ # / B 5 5 ^ >

%J$ 1 n ( 6 o !

p A 9 q *

= & 9

:

$ C Q

$ I& #

9

$ /

)

Gohil et al., 2015

5 ( 50 , Q 9 6 *

' m ) +- $ r D

Patel

et al., 2017; Rahimi et al., 2015

% .(

+s S` 5

% $ 'K! >

.+- 5 Q 5BC

5 at + 2

F , *& 5 8 ( .+- J!

Mirshekari

)

2014b

Q 9 9 $ (

5 79 (t

8 $D=- 8

* - #

5 +! Q D! 5 4 - 5 e 6 *

* Q

% + 5 e /

* - # 79

. e 6 * %

7

% ) -

at ) G C

Malva

sylvestris

9 8 < D 5 ( 79

%

79 6 * m 60

? J

G C

) $ ', `

Delfih et al., 2015

- .(

at J 9

8 ( S 9 5 *9 6 * # $ )

Artemisia dracunculus L.

+ 2 #(

Q 9 Y 50

$ 8 ( 4 - 6 * ,

)

Diyanat & Baziar, 2021

.(

7

% ) h`

Q 9 Y 75

, ( $

!

7 )

Salva officinalis

(

$ )

Satvati Niri et al.,

J 9 .(2015

) $

Nigella

sativa

6 * D& 5 6 * Q D! Y D ( 8 5 # u9 / # u9 / # ! ( $

5 +

$ )

Seyyedi et al., 2016

h` .(

:

;5 (

) 5

Satureja

sahendica

Q D! 5 * 8 D Q 9 Y D (

p-

cymene

$ )

Hosseini et al., 2015

.(

!

"

Q . $ Q 5BC n K(

5 $ @ i " '(

) '( 9

.+- J! 2 -

Cown et al.

) (1998

- + 2 :

;5 ( 5 E5 - -

<

9 9 F 2 J 2 :

;5 ( +=

E5 -

Q Q .+- - 6 * Q 9 %

79 - @v 5 S

5 w

: 79 J ;5 ( %

39 5 86

Q 5 , h` 6 * Q 9 %

7 5 w +< 8 12

: ;5 ( +-

)

Yousefi et al., 2009

7 .(

# A < 5BC % )

# $ - - 5 w J 2 F 2 I m I 37 / 2 5 91 / 1 : $ r D ;5 (

)

Yousefi et al., 2008

& e .(

+ 2 )

+ * , ( (

+- )

Street

et al., 1985

.(

8 - f 0 B J-

J 9 #

Q C q 2

'( a K3 6 * Q 9

$ )

Rahimian & Shariati, 1999

.(

&

E / 0 Q # 5 8 + * ) + 2 -

E5 - 5

:

;5 ( $ ab F S, ( 1

. $ &

2 ! .

- Q %

1396 A< m m3 D

. $ & - / => ? 5 5 <9 @ + /2

! y&

R$

-

>

53

&

5 4 m 2 2 $

5 z

! y&

36

&

5 39 m 2

*$

$

5 _ S 8 P0- 14

J

; - .+-

F k>

+=a

$ AJ

- $ - #

% A

'K!

8 / 26 J - &

5

% A -

r 725 J

. ) 5 & G ( D { J 1

| (

8 D .+- $ 150

@ 9

9 F S ! C - 'u

5

100 F S - @ 9 G ( 7 - JC

+$ 9 '=2

!

. $ 7

% ) m 5 9 100

J6 @ 9

5 +$ 9 '=2 ` 5 ) " 8

40 / 5

. $ SJ- 5 += (8 $D=-

Q G H > I 2 ' J9 ! F ,

' 9

. $ & 6 - ! K F 9

' $ <

/ +<9 R) 2

3× , ! . J %

F 9 #7 6 % 5 6 I

5 / 0 5

e . J "

79 f 0 20

? J

+<9 , ! 5 10

J - 5 J

, F J- 20 +<R=

1396 . $ +<9

C &D 1 . 51 F ; G; #8H 4 # I 5 ; % % *;<%J

* q*

) (cm 6 J6 +

) dS m^-1 ( J -

8o5 J

) (% S !

7 - JC

G ( +!

(^ppm)

30 - 0 6

/ 1 48

/ 7 23 / 0 69

/ 11 05

/ 198 -

- J -

8 RS, e 8 9 C +9 $ (8 * ) 5e 5e 5 $ R :

D E5 - 5 ;5 (

R$ 5 1395

A< < 5BC D

- / => ? 5 5 <9 @

?*&

_5 $ 5 5

J - & R) Q . $ RA

" 3

&

5e #+<9 '=2 #

" S - - E5 - 98

, F 5 * m 2

5e 5 5 $ :

;5 ( D 24 f 8 ( + -

) +! @ i */

Izadi Darbandi & Rashed, 2004

.(

79 ' $ Q J9 !

-) E5 -

79 5 (? J +< 5 R) # S, P0- : 5 R) # S, P0- -) D 2 < ;5 (

. (? J +<

5e

:

;5 ( 79 E5 - 5 D 2 <

1

, ! 5 (79 * R)) 10

J - J

* +<9 1

$ +<9

)

Sarabi et al., 2010

.(

* 79

` 5 8 " m m`

*

$ . -

>

'K!

$

>

)

`

% &5

$ . F ,

02

* +$ 9

F , +!

. F S, D

%J! 1 F a

$ `

> J "

6 F 9 +<9

` % ( ) e +$ ` ) >

9

@ i (8 * # ! ( $ / # _ S 5 $

6 * # D 8 5 # J) / # J) / @ 9) 6 o 6 * #( J6 @ 9)

( J6 . $ =- 3 ( , ) +$ ~( $ 5

4u-

* A<

'mJ 5

8 2

8 85

) 4230 (8 #D Ri R 70

- &

J F

5 `

72

"<( 8 5 #+ - 8

+=a

$ . 5 4 - , ) i 9 AJ- SJ- D 4 - 6 *

F100

FINETECH, Korea

5 ( * f 0m r5

. $ +=a 5

% A F m 5 4 5 D

@ D!

) SAS (Ver. 9.2

r 5 $ @ i 6 *

'(

: 5 E5 - ;5 (

@ D!

SigmaPlot (Ver. 12)

e . $ SJ-

0 ) $ +- 1

( % 0 , - 1

79 6 *

" Jj

) +- $ ,

Cousens, 1985

.(

) 0 1 (

D

Y a



  1

3

Y

+a

I Q C 6 *

$ 6 * 5

X $

# J 2 I ß

8 9 +- ~j< 6 * Q 9

5 9



#1

*9 +-

9 Y Q 9

50 , 6 * 5 $

+D

79 .,$0

0 ) J C - 2

0 X ', ` 9 ( )

1 (

6 * % 0 , +- 79 5

+- SJ- ' 2 $

)

Wilson et al., 1995

.(

) 0 2 (

)

(

1 _iD_{i j}D_j D_iD_j Y a





  

 

3

Y

#a

I Q C 6 * 5 $

6 *

X $ +

ßi

ßj

I I

@5 5 5 J 2 •

I #

5 ' mJ a J 2 +81

Di

+Dj

I

79 .+- @5 5 5

% 9

/ ' mJ a 5 <

Ee` 8 8

. 9

Wilson et al.

) 5 (1995 Kim et al.

) (2006

J C % m 9 9 r D ( F / 0

€^ */

S 5 $ % . 9 Ee` 8 8

0 ) 2 ( F ,

5 $

SJ- . 2

) 0 3 (

) (

1 _iD_{i j}D_j Y a



 

 

/ J C 8 * # ( 0 J C 9 $

) 0 2 ( . $

3

#$ % & .

3 . 1 '! ( )' .

'( , F a R 9 8 < 4 5 Di : 5 E5 - _ S ;5 (

/ , " *J` P0- 5 &)

2 _ S .(

79 Q D!

* .+! Q 9

: 5 E5 - ? J +<

@ 9 ) ;5 (

#( & >

_ S Q 9 Y I

8 D 3 / 17 5 9 / 14 h` @ * += ,

5 &) $ 3

9 8 < - " { J .(

Q ) 8 3 _ S m %

Ocimum basilicum

(

) $ < X $

Baghitabr

Firoozjayi, 2017

.(

Patel et al.

) < D (2017

Q 9 9 8 X $ _ S 8 D %

@ h`

% $ ' 5 +-

7 . % )

Nasrabadi et al.

) at - (2019

'( 5 Q J! D=-

5 %

79 ) D=- _ S % I

6 / 21 5 76 / 17

J - #( J + 2 5 % &5 * I

. $ < $ 'K! '9

Zarei et al.

) ' 9 '( 9 8 D (2020

+=

' 9 J 9 Q 9 I=-

49 / 20 ,

. $ _ S

3 . 2 * + , - .' .

at +3 ! ( $ / 9 8 < 4 5 Di : 79 , F a 7 5 E5 - 5 ;5 (

F a % )

8 ' mJ +! 2 , " *J` P0-

5 &) 2 .(

Q ) ! ( $ / % 7

/ 10 X $ (

79 5 5 ) / %

7 / 6 % ^ (

: +< ) 5 79 +< 5 ;5 (

'( X $ . $ < (? J E5 - : ? J +<

79 5 ;5 ( R) # S,

+< 5 #? J E5 - ? J

I

Y 1 / 20 # 1 / 28 5 4 / 37

! ( $ / Q 9 ,

+=

5 E5 - @ X $

: 5 &) $ ;5 ( 4

.(

C &D 2 L301 1M0 (N O 1# P%QA %#) @A ; 0 ;<R S; A . 67. 67 T#

9 ? 2$ 81

$ 1 N 1 : 15 A ;80 &

Fy ?

&

_S

/ ! ($

J)/

/ J)

85D

/

6*

"o6*

+$ ~($

4- ,

4 - 6 *

P0- `5

6 2

9ns

/ 89 2ns

/ 3 3ns

/ 309 70ns

04ns

/ 0 3ns

/ 598846 4ns

/ 5595 8ns

/ 3917 5ns

/ 171 04ns

/ 0 02ns

/ 0 2ns

/ 2

) E5 - 79 (A

2 5**

/ 249 7**

/ 8 7*

/ 107 2**

/ 87 10**

/ 0 7**

/ 576056 3**

/ 9304 5**

/ 58367 3*

/ 37 12**

/ 0 01**

/ 0 3**

/ 4

: 79 ) ;5 ( (B

2 8**

/ 196 10**

7**

/ 294 4**

/ 84 14**

/ 0 4**

/ 1819992 3**

/ 17733 9**

/ 195878 3ns

/ 4 53**

/ 0 03**

/ 0 3**

/ 11

4 A*B

6ns

/ 0 4**

/ 0 5ns

/ 36 37**

001ns

/ 0 260396ns

8**

/ 2944 2**

/ 33682 5ns

/ 6 02*

/ 0 001ns

/ 0 6**

/ 0

Q 0(

16 5 / 9 05 / 0 2 / 27 3 / 2 008 / 0 5 / 89348 1

/ 176 8 / 1103 9 / 7 006 / 0 0009 / 0 1 / 0

I (%) F y 5

/ 5 7 / 2 8 / 12 8 / 2 3 9 / 15 8 / 9 7 / 7 9 7 / 4 4 / 22 6 / 13

:** * +ns

)O# 1%V W% 1 )O# 0

XY$ 0 5

1 .&

C &D 3 67. L301 7 0 1M0 . 9 ? 2$ 81

A ;80 N 51 1 : 15

) plant. m^-2 ( _ S

) (cm /

J) D 8 5

) (g.

/

- 6 *

4

) ml. plant^-1 (

E5 - ( S,)

6

/ 60 ^a 2

/ 44 ^a 1

/ 3 ^a 8

/ 2116 ^a 17

/ 0 ^a

) 4 ( 7

/ 55 ^b 2

/ 44 ^a 1

/ 3 ^a 8

/ 1611 ^b 13

/ 0 ^b

) 8 ( 1

/ 50 ^c 3

/ 37 ^b 9

/ 2 ^b 7

/ 1891 ^ab 09

/ 0 ^c

:

;5 ( ( S,)

6

/ 60 ^a 3

/ 46 ^a 1

/ 3 ^a 3

/ 2256 ^a 2

/ 0 ^a

) 4 ( 1

/ 54 ^b 5

/ 40 ^b 1

/ 3 ^a 7

/ 1985 ^a 1

/ 0 ^b

) 8 ( 6

/ 51 ^b 8

/ 34 ^c 9

/ 2 ^b 2

/ 1378 ^b 08

/ 0 ^b

P%QA %#

)O# N 1Q;&*; 2 $ 1 I1 # ?1( [; 4'0&(

.&A 0&A 0

C &D 4 67. (\ 1#1 # 2 ) L301 4 " # 1M0 . 9 ? 2$ 81

A ;80 N 51 1 : 15

:

;5 ( / E5 -

( $ ! /

J)

" o 6 *

) kg. ha^-1 ( J3

4 -

) (%

S, S,

7 / 10 ^a 61^a

6983^a 2^a

4 7

/ 9 ^b 57^b

5853^b 2^a

8 5

/ 8 ^c 6

/ 53 ^cd 4950^c

7 / 1 ^b

4 S,

4 / 10 ^a 6

/ 52 ^d 3270^d

7 / 1 ^b

4 5

/ 8 ^c 56^bc

4903^c 4

/ 1 ^c

8 6

/ 8 ^c 6

/ 52 ^d 3410^d

4 / 1 ^c

8 S,

5 / 8 ^c 58^b

4803^c 5

/ 1 ^c

4 7

/ 7 ^d 6

/ 48 ^e 2500^e

5 / 1 ^c

8 7

/ 6 ^e 6

/ 46 ^e 1913^f

4 / 1 ^c

P%QA %#

)O# N 1Q;&*; 2 $ 1 I1 # ?1( [; 4'0&(

.&A 0&A 0

Patel et al.

) > (2017

< 5BC 5

9 8 Q

@ X $ ! ( $ / %

h`

% $ ' 5 +-

.

Izadi Darbandi et al.

) > (2003

< 5BC 5

F a

J 2 E5 -

5 :

;5 ( 5

( $ / 8 <

! +3 F $

at

+ 2 J! 2

79 Q D! 5

5 E5 - :

;5 ( ( $ / Q 9 Y

!

$ { J & . / 9 +$ Rs 8

( $ D& !

+ 2 ; `

5 E5 - :

;5 ( % 5 $

D ~( $ 7

8 )

~( $ - +=a

+ 2 $

:

;5 ( # Q ) +- $ atJ

Izadi Darbandi &

Rashed Mohassel, 2004

.(

3 . 3 '! & .' .

{ J 8 <

5 E5 - 79 , F a R 9

:

;5 ( J) / +S, 5

a / 5 &) J$

2 .(

Q 5 % 79 %

h` @ * ‚ J) / h` 5 +<

5 E5 - +<

:

;5 (

? J

)

>

$ < ( &

5 &) 3 .(

Khuram et al.

) l9 ` 9 8 (2009

5 * J) / 79

/ %

. $ < 'K! @ * '( * J) h` @

Y $

J) / 5 $ J$ SJ- % JR & ? Q 5 9 7

% ) 'K! @ * h`

' Q 9 Y & ? l9 ` SJ-

J) / . $

3 . 4 & .' .

/

79 , F a at +3 J) : 5 E5 - ' mJ F a 5 ;5 (

'(

" *J` P0- 9e

5 &) +! 2 , 2

Q .(

/ %

5 $ < 5 X $ J) 79 5 79 % ^ +S, % m %

: +< ) E5 - +< 5 ;5 (

$ < (? J 5 &)

4 .(

/ J)

7R 6 6 * D& %

5 $

R 6 * 5 + * )

Khuram et al., 2009

.(

r D +- 8 9 `

` 9 @ i 5

#

Q 9 8 I g 6 * Q 9 .

/ + 2 5 S Jj ' at +3

2 *& ? - )

Mariotti et al.,

.(2008 Khuram et al.

) Q J$ Rs (2009

%

* # J) / 79 5 $ <

@ * '( * / %

h` @ . $ < 'K!

J) / Q D! 5 JR $ Y . $

Akhtar et al.

) r D R < { J D (2000

. 9

3 . 5 '! .' .

'( * , F a E5 -

: 5 @ 9 ;5 ( " *J` P0- Di >

/ a , /

# J$ e

/ ƒ 3 ' 5 % ' mJ a <

5 &) 2 Q .(

79 5 % / %

: h` @ * ‚ 5 ;5 (

- 5 E5 - ? J +< h` 5 E5

: +< 5 R) * 5 $ < ;5 (

: 5 E5 - ? J @ 9 ;5 (

F ,

/ # * += # &

I

8 D 8 / 23 # 6 / 10 5 ,

9 / 11 # 9 / 38 5 &) Q 9 , 3

.(

-

a

* - '(

)

Chenopodium album

(L.

6 *

# + 5 3

*

$

X-

* -

# at S Q

$

<

5

+$

5 F $

%J!

#+ 2

%

Q at . $

Q 9 79

* - 6 * e

Q D!

5 +!

D!

Q 79 5

# R) R) Q$

5 Q$

+<

J

#+$ 9 6 *

e I

5 `

Q$

# 25 5 27 , m

* 85

Q 9 9

8 <

at

* -

6 * 79

Q$

5 ^ 8

s ) $

Mirshakari, 2014a

.(

3 . 6 2 . 3

4 5 Di ', ` { J 8 <

+S, 9

8 5 D +3

at '( , F a

5 E5 - :

;5 ( 2 , " *J` P0-

+!

# 9e +S, ' 5 % ' mJ a

/ 5 &) = 2

% A m { J .(

8 <

* +<

? J

5 E5 -

:

;5 ( )

>

#( Di I Q 9 Y

4 / 5 5

1 / 7 8 5 , D

@ * +=

5 &) $ h`

3 (.

Khuram et al.

) 8 5 l9 ` 9 8 (2009

D *

5 79 'K! @ * '( * m %

5 + 2 8 F Q D! 5 $ <

# 79 8 5

D + 2 .+! Q 9

5 $ 2 i 8

+ /!

DJ - J!

i + R 9 $

8 5 Q 9 D

$ )

Akhtar et al., 2000

.(

3 . 7 .

79 , F a 5 E5 -

: ;5 ( ' mJ F a 5

8 / 6 * 5

5 &) 2

Q .(

) 6 * % 2230

@ 9

79 5 * ( J6 m %

) 540 E5 - +< * ( J6 @ 9

: +< 5 $ < ? J ;5 (

'6$) 1 .(

6 * $ Q 9 '(

€^ *J`

% 9 +- % '

5 J$ *9 p P0- 5 G 5 $ '

' *6 +R& F 9 C $ + - - = g Y ' % * 5 J$ (

% . $

Q 9 8 D

6 *

8 - #

Q ~ Kj 5 6 * D& Q 9

< 5 $ DJ - J!

- '

) +=

Fellows & Roeth, 1992

.(

Q 5BC 6 * Q 9 D A 8

X- 9 r D

)

Meena & Mehta, 2009; Gohil et al., 2014;

Kumar et al., 2015

.(

A ;80 A0 1*7 . : 159 ? 2$ 81 67. 4 " # N01M0 P%QA %# ; "# .1 4*

a

b

c d

bc

de c

e

f

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 4 8

1*7.A0(gr m-2)

L301

? 2$

(plant m^-2)

: 15 9 \ 1# 1 # 2 1 L301 : 15 9 \ 1# 1 # 2 ]^ L301

"

: 15 9 \ 1# 1 # 2 , L301 250

200

150

100

50

0 0 4 8

Khuram et al.

) '2 ` 5 l9 ` 9 8 (2009

# 6 * I

5 *

'K! @ * '(

6 * Q 9 . $ <

+ 2 8 F Q D!

'

Q 9 5 G J) / Q 9 # J) / Q 9 J) / 6 * Q 9 . $

'

+ 2 X-

Akhtar et al.

) (2000

.+- $ r D

@ * 6 * Q 9 F $ ‚ =

# h`

9 +S 8 '( +

^ >

F 5

+ Q

eg , 5 f j # Q

F ,

6 * 5 J!

Q i J % 9 J! Q 9

J!

- Q 5BC 8

) +m 0

Hosseini et

al., 2008

.(

6 *

79 : 5 E5 -

SJ- ;5 (

0 ) 3 ( $ 5 J C 5 $ r

5 &

) 5 ( .+- $ |

C &D 5 . 1 #0

& H1 80 4 (

_801 0

1*7 . A0 A ;80 1 01

L301 67.

81

? 2$

9 : 15

J C I

J- 0(

% = I

2245 a 2

/ 28 86

/

0 0/013 0/069 ^β1

β2

129 / 0 051

/ 0

) 1*7 . +a kg. ha^-1

67. 80 . `;01 ( 81

ßi

ßj

+ W% 1

67. a A2F C 0 A2F ' W;01b 81

.

0 ) 3 (

+2 6 * +

) ^ 86 / 0

=

r²

79 ( Jj

: 5 E5 - Q C ;5 (

J C . * 6 * m

X $

) #(a

) E5 - J 2 F 2

β1

: J 2 F 2 5 ( ;5 (

)

β2

#(

I 2245 # J6 @ 9 069

/ 0 5 129 / 0

5

$ : J 2 F 2 I ^ m . ;5 (

9 +$ % + 6` E5 - +=

: 79 ;5 (

% C +- 2 Y

50 ,

6 * +!

$ ?2 5 . 50

+! ,

6 * '(

49 / 14

? J

5 E5 - 75

/ 7

? J

: J! w S ;5 (

5 &) 5 + R .(

Q C m 6 * $

79 Jj

5 E5 -

: '6$ ;5 ( )

1 ( 5 .+- $ 8 <

" 79 Q D! @ A 6 * < 9 5 % < 9 5 % 5 +- < ' 2

: ;5 ( 7<) 79 .+- = 9

5 % a # 6 * < 9 5

?*&

1 eC '6$) 2 .(

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 (kg. ha-1)CC3 CC1

(plant. m

-2) D

"CC E# CC;

(plant. m^-2)

F CCG HCC; E# CC;

A ;80 A0 1*7 . & )%G% 1; "# .2 4*

L301 67 T#

? 2$

9 : 15

1. Additive

`

# I $ 5 m &

# J C 5 3 6 * 8

R 7

8 5 % +2

Q C ^ . *

1 /- Q

S +

1 m - #

* +!

6

8 J

+ 2 i 5

9 7

Jj 5

% SJ- .+-

+!

8 '( 5 J 2 F 2 Q 9

$ +! # 6 *

&

) 9

Denines et al., 2004

Q .(

Q 5BC 9

/ 0 + 2

J( C +- $ -

+ 2

h`

S

J( C 9 +- , % 5

!

"

) $

Street et al., 1985

% .(

&

'(

)

* + , ( (

+- .

%*

% 9 - + 2 ) 5k

" D 8 * X $ Q

D 8 7 Q 9

79 Jj

D

2 . " J 2 ~( $ 9

$ ‚ j / &

* 9 / 0 q > 8

9 8 " R $ S

9

+- . 5

Haizel & Harper

) (1973

a 9 9 8

‚ j 79

_ *i a

S 8

5 ` _ % .+- 79

i " a 8 ) # $ +- 8 9 5 3 a

A

$ . & %

) + 2

* , ( +

1.Integrated weed management (IWM)

) +- (

Moechnig et al., 2003

.(

F m m3 l9

79 % 0 % 6 * +!

$ D9 *J )

Kenzevic et al., 1994

( .

Moechnig et al.

)

* +! (2003

6 J F … i

+ 2 7 8

* - )

Chenopodium album

5 (

@ 5 )

Alopecurus myosuroides

SJ- (

i -

J # 2 8 < {

9 J 2 I +-

* +!

6

; - 9 7 -

F5 S Jj

+ 2 / 0 .+$

% :

;5 ( E5 - 5 -

X 6 * +! SJ- $

)

- 6 * Q 9 l9 ` 9 8 <

99 - 32

8 6 @ * . , - #

8 5 #8 $D=-

J 2 F 2 :

;5 ( E5 - +=

Q

)

Cown et al., 1998

.(

Tolerr et al.

) r D (1996

) w 2 5 + /*& + 2 9 9

Sorghum

halepense

5 ( :

;5 ( -

Q w 2

J 2 F 2 % 5 S J= .+- R :

;5 (

. < r D w 2 ‚ j 5 R

3 . 8

6 !7! .

79 , 5 E5 -

:

;5 ( 5

F a ' mJ 8 P0- " o 6 *

/ a , "

5 &) J$ e 2

.(

Q %

) " o 6 * 6983

X $ ( J6 @ 9

5 5

79 ) m % 1913

5 79 % ^ ( J6 @ 9 ) +<

J

? :

;5 (

< (E5 - 5

5 &) $ 4

.(

Khuram et al.

) J$ Rs (2009

* " o 6 * '2 ` 5 l9 ` 'K! @ * '( 5

. $ <

/ 0 " o 6 * Q 9 a

+ 2 5 E5 -

:

;5 ( r D D

) $

Izadi Darbandi et al., 2003

.(

3 . 9

9- :, - .

+$ ~( $ 5 E5 - 79 , a R / a , { C *J` P0- +$ e

5 &) 2 .(

Q ) +$ ~( $ % 1

/ 33 ( ,

5 $ < E5 - * 79

%

D ) 8 1 / 29 * ( , +<

E5 -

? J

'6$) $ 3

.(

Khuram et al.

) > (2009

< 5BC '2 ` 5 l9 ` 9 8 5

'K! @ * '( 5 * +$ ~( $ + 2 5 Q D! . $ <

Q 9 +$ ~( $ { J 9

Sarwar

) . +m 0 (1994

, 0 1 c5 ? 2$ 1M0 P%QA %# ; "# .3 4*

A ;80

3 . 10 < .

, F a 79

:

;5 ( E5 - 5

5 , " *J` P0- 8 ' mJ F a

, / a , { C P0- 4 -

+$

5 &) 1 Q .(

( , 5 ) 4 - , %

79 5 $ < 5 X $ %

) +S, % m 4

/ 1 5 79 % ^ ( ,

: +< ) +< 5 ;5 (

5 &) $ < (? J E5 - 4

X $ .(

: ? J +< '(

79 5 #;5 (

+< 5 R) # S,

? J

E5 -

? J

# I Y

5 / 24 # 2 / 26 5 5 / 29 ,

X $ += 4 - , Q 9

@

5 &) $ E5 - 4

{ J .(

a - 9 ` 8 3 4 - 5

* 4 - , #+- 8 Q

. *

Putnam et al.

) (1985

r D 8 D 9

4 - ,

… S Q D!

85

‚ j C 9 79

#79 Q . $ 8

6 7R

% '

DJ - J!

at 4 - , Q D!

5

8 ) ) h!

79 ( C 9

$

€ *J`

+=

Q I 9

+$ 9

2 J

6 * Q

*

)

Alizadeh et al., 2010

.(

3 . 11 .

a 5 E5 - 79 , :

;5 ( ' mJ a 5 8

/ a 4 - 6 * " *J` P0-

5 &) J$ e , 2

.(

Q 4 - 6 * %

) 45 5 * ( J6 J

<

$ . 79 ) +S, % m % 7

J

) = 9 * ( J6 +<

5 E5 - +<

:

;5 (

? J

'6$) $ < ( 4

.(

a

ab

b

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

0 4 8

,01 c5(%)

L301 67.

81

? 2$

) plant m^-2 ( 34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

8 4

0

A ;80 @A $0 1*7 . A ;80 ? 2$ 81 67. 4 " # N01M0 P%QA %# ; "# .4 4*

8 79 '*3 2

Kj<

/ Q 9 85 # 5 J K3

+ 8 D

- I

E > 5 8

F^ K3 +-

" { J .

79 9 8 < - Q$

5 +<

* - 5 6 * 4 - /

5

% 5 3

#79

` 5

# / 36

J

? J

$ J- 9 4 - 6 *

)

Mirshakari, 2014a

(.

{ J 9 8 < A Q

Q X $ 8 3 4 - 6 * %

+-

Baghitabr Firoozjayi, 2017) .(

4

= & .

> ?

>

79 #Q { J & 9 +<

? J

5 E5 - :

;5 ( $ +! Y

$ S 9 5 *9 6 * 5 % % 5

# :

;5 ( a Q 6 * Q 9

.+$

79 5 % ^

# '

D 4 - 6 * # 6 * $ +!

= 8

>

/ i 5 +! Q 9 5 +<9 9

4 - 5 6 * # 5 8 r 5 C 4 - 5 6 * K` % #+- + *

h` # % + I- 5 %

: n K(

f J& D ;5 (

5 $ = % I- 8 5 $ F 2 Q D! X $ #' % P 3, +

m + 2 . * 7 !

5

* @ A' .

+ *`

+ 5 / 5 < 5BC

A< %

o D ! A< 5 D9 5

Q9 / => ? 5 5 <9 @ A<

-

# 2 5 6<

.

6 B .' . C+ D

† z /

?!

X- 8

&5 .

7 C D .

Akhtar, M., Mahmood, A., Ahmad, J., & Iqbal, K.

(2000). Nitrogen uptake efficiency in heat (Triticum aestivum L.) as influenced by nitrogen level and weed crop competition duration.

Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 3(6), 1002-1003.

a

b

c d

cd

e cd

ef

f 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 4 8

1*7.@A$0(ml. ha-1)

L301

? 2$

(plant m^-2)

: 15 9 \ 1# 1 # 2 1 L301 : 15 9 \ 1# 1 # 2 ]^ L301 : 15 9 \ 1# 1 # 2 , L301 50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 0 4 8

Alizadeh, Y., Koochaki A., & Nasiri Mahallati, M.

(2010). Evaluation of light absorption and efficiency in mixed cultivation of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Journal of Agricultural Ecology, 1, 94-104. (In Persian)

Baghitabr Firoozjayi, T. (2017). Evaluation of replacement intercropping series of green bean (Phaseolous vulgaris L.) with basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) under weed competition. M.Sc.

Thesis of Science Degree in Agronomy.160p.

Cousens, R. (1985). A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Annual Applied Biology, 107, 239-252.

Cown, P., Weaver, S.F., & Swanton, C.J. (1998) Interfrence between pigweed (Amaranthus spp), banyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Science,46,533-539.

Damjanovic, B., Lepojevic Z., Zivcovic V., & Tolic, A. (2005) Extraction of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) seeds with supercritical CO²: Comparison with hyrodistillation. Food Chemistry, 92, 143-149.

Delfih, M.R., Sanavi, S.A.M., & Farhoudi, R.

(2015) Effect of different nitrogen nutritional systems on yield and competition ability of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) against mallow (Malva spp.). Weed Research Journal, 7(2), 71-86. (In Persian).

Denines, S.R., Dille, J.A., Blinka, E.L., &

Staggenbogr, S.A. (2004). Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and shatter cane (Sorghum bicolor) interference in corn. Weed Science, 52, 976-983.

Diyanat, M. & Baziar, S. (2021) Weed control on growth, yield, and physicochemical properties of tarragon. International Journal of Vegetable Science, 27(2), 144-156.

Fellows, G.H., & Roeth, F.W. (1992) Shatter cane (Sorghum bicolor L.) interference in soybean (Glycine max L.). Weed Science, 40, 68-73.

Gohil, B.S., Mathukia, R.K., Chhodavadia, S.K., Dobariya, V.K., & Solanki, R.M. (2015) Effect of weed management on growth, yield and weed indices and soil weed seed bank in Rabi fennel.

The Bioscan, 10(1), 147-151.

Gohil, B.S., Mathukia, R.K., Dobariya, V.K., &

Chhodavadia, S.K. (2014). Weed management and dynamics of weed seed bank in fennel (Foeniculum vulgare L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science, 46 (4), 399-401.

Haizel, K., & Harper, J.L. (1973). The effect of density and timing of removal on interference between barley, white mustard and wild oats.

Journal of Applied Ecology, 1, 23-31.

Hamill, A.S., Weaver, S., Ferguson, G., Sikkema, P., Tardif, F., & Swanton, C.J. (2002).

Economic benefit and potential risks of publication 75 (most efficacious approach) and Ontario HADSS (most economic approach) for weed management strategies in corn and soybeans. Ottawa, ON, Canada؛ Agriculture and Agri-food Canada Research Report, 33 p.

Horak, M. J., & Loughin, T.M. (2000). Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Science, 48, 347-355.

Hossaini, S.M., Agha Alikhani M., Sefidkon, F., &

Ghalavand, A. (2015) Vegetative yield and essential oil production of Savory (Satureja sahendica Bornm.) affected by organic fertilizer and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) competition. Proceeding 4th National Congress on Medicinal Plants, Tehran, Iran.

452: 81, 12–13 May 2015. (In Persian).

Hosseini, A., Rashed Mohassel, M., Nasiri Mahallati, M., & Haj Mohammadnia Qali Baf, K. (2008). Investigation of the effect of nitrogen content and duration of weed interference on yield and yield components of corn (Zea mays L.). Plant protection (agricultural sciences and industries), 23(1), 97-105.

Izadi Darbandi, A., Rashed Mohassel, M. H., &

Nasiri Mahallati, M. (2003). Study of Competitive Effects of Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) Weeds on Bean Performance. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(1), 13-22.

Izadi Darbandi, E., & Rashed Mohassel, M. H.

(2004). Determination of Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) Economic Damage Threshold in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgare).

Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 11 (3), 45-51. (In Persian)

Kenzevic, S., Weise, S.F., & Swanton, C.J. (1994).

Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retruflexus L.) interference in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Science, 42, 568-573.

Khuram, M., Tanveer, A., Nadeem, M.A., Sarwar, N., & Shahzad, M. (2009). Critical period of weed crop competition in Fennel. Weed Science, 15(2-3), 171-181.

Kim, S., Marshall, E.J.P., Caseley, J.C., & Barain, P. (2006). Modelling interactions between herbicide dose and multiple weed species interference in crop–weed competition. Weed Research. An International Journal of Weed Biology, Ecology and Vegetation Management, 46, 175-184.