Sanctions have been imposed on Iran for a long time .They first commenced after the Islamic Revolution and were imposed by the United States (1980), the UN Security Council and the EU (2006) in numerous ways, including trade and finance. Other countries supported the US and the EU sanctions on Iran based on their membership in the United Nations for adhering to the Security Council resolutions (according to Article 25 of the UN Charter) and their national interests: even those countries unilaterally imposed some sanctions. \nDue to the direct or indirect negative impact on Iranian citizens\' lives, the sanctions on Iran are in contradiction to generic and worldwide human rights’ principles and values. Also in regard to various components of human development (economic, political, nutritional, social, personal, health and environment-related security) in these areas, as well as the negative impact of sanctions on each of them, economic security was selected as the main indicator of the human security doctrine. \nIt has been shown that sanctions have had a negative effect on many matters such as the trading of both goods and raw materials, commercial affairs, foreign investment, fiscal dealings, exchange of knowledge and technical affairs. All of these things are a prerequisite of economic security.\nIn addition, using reliable information by experts and governmental statistics, the impact of sanctions on the components of economic security, including production, labor rights and inflation were evaluated, putting an emphasis on the negative consequences of sanctions on the aforementioned indicators. \nThe sanctions revealed the weaknesses in administration, management and strategies, which has seriously jeopardized human security, particularly economic security indicators in Iran and endangered Iranian citizens’ human rights. Hence, the author’s hypothesis (negative impacts of sanctions in human development from the viewpoint of human security doctrine) was proved positive, which clarifies the responsibility of one-sided sanction enforcers.
Weeds are one of the major threats for crop production. Interseeding cover crops is an alternative to laborious intertillages and hand weeding. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of fertilization and interseeding cover crops on the yield of forage maize, number and dry weight of weeds. Three cover crops, fall rye (Secale cereale L.), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa L.) and berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.), were interseeded in maize furrows (Zea mays L.). Nitrogen fertilizer timing was consisting of two levels including, the first level (N1= ½ at planting time + ½ in the 8 to 10 leaf stage of maize) and the second level (N2= 1⁄3 at planting time + 1⁄3 in the 8 to 10 leaf +1⁄3 a week before tasseling. The number and dry weight of weeds and main crop yield were recorded at dough stage of main crop. The results showed that weeds growth was suppressed significantly by interseeding cover crops through increasing the soil covered area by main crop and cover crops also and high biomass production by cover crops. In addition, application of nitrogen fertilizer had positive effects on the main crop yield and weed suppression. Therefore, it is concluded, that weeds can be suppressed effectively by interseeding cover crops with sufficient fertilization.
The experiment was conducted in Agricultural Research Station of Ardebil based on split plot experiment with completely randomized blocks in 4 replications in order to evaluate the effects of different planting dates (PDs) and harvesting dates (HDs) of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of sugar beet seed. PDs as the main factor were 10 March, 25 March, 9 April and 24 April in main plots and four HDs included 15, 30, 45 and 60 days after flowering as sub-main factor. After harvesting and transporting the seeds to the laboratory, classification and tests relating to qualitative characteristics of seeds were done under standard conditions and resulting data was analyzed and means were compared according to LSR Duncan test. It is found that PD significantly affected seed effective filling period (EFP) and rate. HD had significant effect (α = 1%) on seed yield/plant, seed percentage in all sizes and classifications, germination rate and EFP and maximum seed weight. According to the variance analysis tables, over size seeds (>4.5mmin diameter), EFP and eventually, maximum seed weight were significantly affected by planting × harvesting interaction. The highest seed yield was obtained in third and second harvest, respectively. Likewise, the highest seed yield/plant in all PDs was obtained in third harvest. The third harvest from third and fourth PD was more effective on favorite characteristics than other treatments. From first to third HD, the percentage of seeds with the diameter of 3.5-4.5 and >4.5 mm increased. The longest effecting filling period occurred in third PD × fourth HD that accompanied by the lowest seed filling rate. The highest seed weight was obtained in first PD × fourth HD that was not appropriate for seed production because of the increase in shattering amount in this treatment.
In order to evaluate the Johnson grass weed effect on the maize yield and yield component was performed an experiment as complete randomized block design with four replications and two planting date of maize in the Moghan agriculture research station field. The experimental treatments included different Johnson grass densities (0, 4, 8, 12 and 16 pl/ m2). The experiment results showed that there was significant difference at 1% probably level between planting dates for the attributes such as yield, plant height, maize ear length and maize leaf area index but the difference was non-significant for attributes such as biological yield, harvesting index, stem diameter and maize ear diameter. Also, the interaction of planting date and treatment showed significant difference for attributes such as yield, biological yield. Plant height, ear diameter and maize leaf area index at 1% probably level and for attribute such as ear length at 5% probably level. The results indicated that Johnson grass density increasing from 4 numbers per square meter to 8, 12 and 16 numbers caused to decrease yield and yield component of maize, strongly. The most amounts of maize measured attributes amounts was in compare to the control treatment without weed at the first planting date under 4 numbers per square meter of Johnson grass density and the less amount was related to the first or second planting date under 16 numbers per square meter of Johnson grass density.