Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T01:00:18.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop Losses in Wheat (Triticum aestivum) as Determined Using Weeded and Nonweeded Quadrats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Larry Hume
Larry Hume*
Affiliation:
Res. Branch, Agric. Canäda, Box 440, Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3A2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of including crop density in studies of weed-wheat competition and in making estimates of crop losses due to weeds was demonstrated. Wheat density in adjacent quadrats of 1 m2 varied by an average of 25 plants in the farm fields and research plots examined. Differences between adjacent quadrats were in the same range for fields sown with different implements. Yield per plant, dry weight per plant, and tillering per plant decreased with increasing wheat density. For weed-crop competition studies in small-grain crops, the yields of weed-free and weedy quadrats are normally compared to estimate crop loss caused by competition. It was demonstrated that such estimates can be highly distorted if crop density is not taken into account. Current procedures used widely in agronomic competition studies are inadequate to properly define the relationship between crops and weeds. A more accurate method for performing such investigations is described in which both weed and crop abundance are determined. These variables are related to crop loss using multiple regression.

Keywords

Competitioninterference
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , September 1985 , pp. 734 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Competition in cultivated crops. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 398. Pages 202–233.Google Scholar
2. Baker, R. J. 1982. Effect of seeding rate on grain yield, straw yield and harvest index of eight spring wheat cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:285–291.Google Scholar
3. Cordes, R. C. and Bauman, T. T. 1984. Field competition between ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomea hederacea) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:364–370.Google Scholar
4. Dekker, J. and Meggitt, W. F. 1983. Interference between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Res. 23:91–101.Google Scholar
5. Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Freund, R. J. and Minton, P. D. 1979. Regression Methods. A Tool for Data Analysis. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. 261 pp.Google Scholar
7. Ghafar, Z. and Watson, A. K. 1983. Effect of corn (Zea mays) population on the growth of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 31:588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Ghafar, Z. and Watson, A. K. 1983. Effect of corn (Zea mays) seeding date on the growth of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 31:572–575.Google Scholar
9. Gillespie, G. R. and Miller, S. D. 1984. Sunflower competition in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:105–111.Google Scholar
10. Guitard, A. A., Newman, J. A., and Hoyt, P. B. 1961. The influence of seedling rate on the yield and the yield components of wheat, oats, and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 41:751–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York. 892 pp.Google Scholar
12. Ivany, J. A. 1980. Effect of weed competition and weed control programs on rutabaga yield. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:917–922.Google Scholar
13. Kadian, M. S., Upadhya, M. D., and Agarwal, H. O. 1982. Effect of intra- and interspecific competition on various growth parameters of wheat variety Sonalika in pure and mixed stands with Chenopodium album L. Indian J. Ecol. 9:64–71.Google Scholar
14. Marra, M. C. and Carlson, G. A. 1983. An economic threshold model for weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:604–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Nath, S. and Gupta, S. G. 1982. Phytosociological studies on weeds competing with barley (Hordeum vulgare Linn.) crop. Indian J. Ecol. 9:59–63.Google Scholar
16. O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. D., Weiss, G. M., and Dew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:725–731.Google Scholar
17. Peschken, D. P., Thomas, A. G., and Wise, R. F. 1983. Loss in yield of rapeseed (Brassica napus, B. campestris) caused by perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Weed Sci. 31:740–744.Google Scholar
18. Peters, N.C.B. and Wilson, B. J. 1983. Some studies on competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. II. Variation of A. fatua emergence and development and its influence on crop yield. Weed Res. 23:305–311.Google Scholar
19. Puckridge, D. W. and Donald, C. M. 1967. Competition among wheat plants sown at a wide range of densities. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 18:193–211.Google Scholar
20. Rauber, R. 1977. Kurz- und longfristige Auswirkungen bei der Bekampfung von Flughafer (Avena fatua L.) in Sommergerste. Z. Pflanzenkr. Pflanzenschutz 8:107–117.Google Scholar
21. Richardson, M. J. 1980. Yield loss in barley associated with Sinapis arvensis L. (charlock) after continuous routine use of herbicide. Weed Res. 20:295–298.Google Scholar
22. Rioux, R. 1982. La mesure de l'interférence du chiendent dans l'orge. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:183–188.Google Scholar
23. Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980. Effects of green foxtail and lamb's-quarters interference in field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1419–1425.Google Scholar
24. Stuart, B. L., Harrison, S. K., Abernathy, J. R., Krieg, D. R., and Wendt, C. W. 1984. The response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) water relations to smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) competition. Weed Sci. 32:126–132.Google Scholar
25. Tisdell, C. A., Auld, B. A., and Meuz, K. M. 1984. Crop loss elasticity in relation to weed density and control. Agric. Syst. 13:161–166.Google Scholar
26. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplant tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
27. Wilson, B. J. and Peters, N.C.B. 1982. Some studies of competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. I. The influence of A. fatua on yield of barley. Weed Res. 22:143–148.Google Scholar
28. Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:226–234.Google Scholar
29. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop Competition. A Review. International Plant Protection Ctr., Oregon State Univ. 196 pp.Google Scholar