Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T20:00:28.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Cropping Systems with Cultural Techniques Augments Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Management in Barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Neil Harker ,
John T. O'Donovan ,
R. Byron Irvine ,
T. Kelly Turkington  and
George W. Clayton
K. Neil Harker*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
John T. O'Donovan
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
R. Byron Irvine
Affiliation:
AAFC, Brandon Research Centre, Box 1000A, R.R. 3, Brandon, MB R7A 5Y3, Canada
T. Kelly Turkington
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
George W. Clayton
Affiliation:
AAFC, Lethbridge Research Centre, Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: neil.harker@agr.gc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild oat causes more crop yield losses and accounts for more herbicide expenditures than any other weed species on the Canadian Prairies. A study was conducted from 2001 to 2005 at four Canadian Prairie locations to determine the influence of repeated cultural and herbicidal management practices on wild oat population density, biomass, and seed production, and on barley biomass and seed yield. Short or tall cultivars of barley were combined with normal or double barley seeding rates in continuous barley or a barley–canola–barley–field-pea rotation under three herbicide rate regimes. The same herbicide rate regime was applied to the same plots in all crops each year. In barley, cultivar type and seeding rate were also repeated on the same plots year after year. Optimal cultural practices (tall cultivars, double seeding rates, and crop rotation) reduced wild oat emergence, biomass, and seed production, and increased barley biomass and seed yield, especially at low herbicide rates. Wild oat seed production at the quarter herbicide rate was reduced by 91, 95, and 97% in 2001, 2003, and 2005, respectively, when tall barley cultivars at double seeding rates were rotated with canola and field pea (high management) compared to short barley cultivars at normal seeding rates continuously planted to barley (low management). Combinations of favorable cultural practices interacted synergistically to reduce wild oat emergence, biomass and seed production, and to increase barley yield. For example, at the quarter herbicide rate, wild oat biomass was reduced 2- to 3-, 6- to 7-, or 19-fold when optimal single, double, or triple treatments were combined, respectively. Barley yield reductions in the low-management scenario were somewhat compensated for by full herbicide rates. However, high management at low herbicide rates often produced more barley than low management in higher herbicide rate regimes.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L.barley, Hordeum vulgare L.canola, Brassica napus L.field pea, Pisum sativum L.Combined practicescrop densitycrop healthcrop heightcrop rotationcultural practicesdirect seedingintegrated weed managementoptimal agronomicsreduced herbicide rates

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 326 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L. 2003. An ecological approach to strengthen weed management in the semiarid Great Plains. Adv. Agron. 80:33–62.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agron. J. 97:1579–1583.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 2008. Diversity and no-till: keys for pest management in the U.S. Great Plains. Weed Sci. 56:141–145.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol. 20:793–814.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Brenzil, C. A., Hall, L. M., Holzgang, G., Lozinski, C., and Shirriff, S. 2008. Weed resistance monitoring in the Canadian Prairies. Weed Technol. 22:530–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Thomas, A. G., Legere, A., Kelner, D. J., Van Acker, R. C., and Meers, S. 1999. Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in small-grain production areas. Weed Technol. 13:612–625.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Beckie, H. J., and Smith, E. G. 2008. Ongoing development of integrated weed management systems on the Canadian Prairies. Weed Sci. 56:146–150.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2005. Integration of agronomic practices and herbicides for sustainable weed management in a zero-till barley field pea rotation. Weed Technol. 19:190–196.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., Li, X., O'Donovan, J. T., and Harker, K. N. 1999. An integrated weed management approach to managing foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) in conservation tillage systems. Weed Technol. 13:347–353.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Binning, L. K., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2002. Estimating giant foxtail cohort productivity in soybean based on weed density, leaf area, or volume. Weed Sci. 50:72–78.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.Google Scholar
Donmez, E., Sears, R. G., Shroyer, J. P., and Paulsen, G. M. 2001. Genetic gain in yield attributes of winter wheat in the Great Plains. Crop Sci. 41:1412–1419.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Clayton, G. W. 2004. Diversified weed management systems. Pages 251–265. In Inderjit, , Principles and Practices in Weed Management: Biology and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003a. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:433–440.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Kirkland, K. J., Baron, V. S., and Clayton, G. W. 2003b. Early-harvest barley (Hordeum vulgare) silage reduces wild oat (Avena fatua) densities under zero tillage. Weed Technol. 17:102–110.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Battles, B. A., and Nordby, D. 2004. Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean. Weed Sci. 52:242–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupinsky, J. M., Tanaka, D. L., and Lares, M. T. 2004. Leaf spot diseases of barley and spring wheat as influenced by previous crops. Agron. J. 96:259–266.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and O'Donovan, J. 2006. Economic impact of alien weeds on wheat, barley and canola production. Poster, Proceedings of the Canadian Weed Science Society, November 27–29, Victoria, BC, Canada. http://www.cwss-scm.ca/LG3/publications.asp. Accessed: February 27, 2009.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 656.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weed life history: identifying vulnerabilities. Pages 40–98. In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Romain, E. S., Lindwall, C. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Prot. 13:243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2006. Wheat seeding rate influences herbicide performance in wild oat (Avena fatua L.). Agron. J. 98:815–822.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technol. 14:624–629.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Newman, J. C., Robinson, D., and Hall, L. M. 2001. Barley seeding rate influences the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci. 49:746–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Newman, J. C., Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and McAndrew, D. W. 1999. Effect of barley plant density on wild oat interference, shoot biomass and seed yield under zero tillage. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:655–662.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Newman, J. C., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2004. Crop seeding rate influences the performance of variable herbicide rates in a canola/barley/canola rotation. Weed Technol. 18:733–741.Google Scholar
Sagar, G. R. and Mortimer, A. M. 1976. An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds. Adv. Appl. Biol. 1:1–47.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture 2008. Varieties of Grain Crops 2008. http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspxDNa9768c78-f767-4a1f-a9c4-507a9dae074b. Accessed: October 28, 2008.Google Scholar
Thill, D. C., O'Donovan, J. T., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 1994. Integrated weed management strategies for delaying herbicide resistance. Phytoprotection. 75 (Suppl):61–70.Google Scholar
Turkington, T. K., Xi, K., Tewari, J. P., Lee, H. K., Clayton, G. W., and Harker, K. N. 2005. Cultivar rotation as a strategy to reduce leaf diseases under barley monoculture. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 27:283–290.Google Scholar
Watson, P. R., Derksen, D. A., and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. The ability of 29 barley cultivars to compete and withstand competition. Weed Sci. 54:783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Smika, D. E., and Hergert, G. W. 1988. Long-term effects of no-tillage in a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)–sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)–fallow rotation. Weed Sci. 36:384–393.Google Scholar
Zand, E. and Beckie, H. J. 2002. Competitive ability of hybrid and open-pollinated canola (Brassica napus) with wild oat (Avena fatua). Can. J. Plant Sci. 82:473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar