Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:19:56.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Russian Thistle (Salsola iberica) Interference on Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Frank L. Young
Frank L. Young*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of Russian thistle density and duration of interference on spring wheat was investigated in two 3-yr field studies. In the density study, the best fit regression equation predicted a loss in spring wheat yield of 0.5, 0.5, and 0.6% in 1983, 1984, and 1985, respectively, for each percent of the total biomass contributed by Russian thistle. In 1985, when rainfall was 46% below normal, the highest weed density produced greater than 70% of the total plant biomass and reduced yields more than 50%. In contrast, in 1984 when rainfall was 65% above normal, the highest weed density produced less than 20% of the total plant biomass and reduced yields 11%. In the duration study, the predicted yield loss was 2.3 and 0.7% for 1983 and 1984, respectively, for each week of interference. In 1985, yield was not significantly reduced until after 6 weeks of interference. In both studies, spikes/m of row had the highest correlation with yield and were affected the most by weed interference.

Keywords

Russian thistle, Salsola iberica Sennen and Pau #3 SASKRspring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Dirkwin’Competitiongrain yieldweed biomassyield componentsSASKR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , September 1988 , pp. 594 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Alex, J. F. 1970. Competition of Saponaria vaccaria and Sinapis arvensis in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50:379–388.Google Scholar
2. Allen, E. B. 1982. Germination and competition of Salsola kali with native C3 and C4 species under three temperature regimes. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 109: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Allen, E. B. 1982. Water and nutrient competition between Salsola kali and two native grass species (Agropyron smithii and Boutelona gracilis). Ecology 63:732–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bowden, B. A. and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7:349–359.Google Scholar
5. Burrows, V. D. and Olson, P. J. 1955. Reaction of small grains to various densities of wild mustard and the results obtained after their removal with 2,4-D or by hand. I. Experiments with wheat. Can. J. Agric. Sci. 35:68–75.Google Scholar
6. Campbell, C. A., Davidson, H. R., and Winkleman, G. E. 1981. Effect of nitrogen, temperature, growth stage, and duration of moisture stress on yield components and protein content of Manitou spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:549–563.Google Scholar
7. Drawe, D. L. and Palmblad, I. G. 1977. Competition between Russian wild rye seedlings and four common weeds. J. Range Manage. 30:223–226.Google Scholar
8. Evans, R. A. and Young, J. A. 1982. Russian thistle and barbwire Russian thistle seed and seed-bed ecology. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Agric. Res. Results ARR-25. 40 pp.Google Scholar
9. Friesen, G., Shebeski, L. H., and Robinson, A. D. 1960. Economic losses caused by weed competition in Manitoba grain fields. II. Effect of weed competition on the protein content of cereal crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 40:652–658.Google Scholar
10. Gillespie, G. R. and Miller, S. D. 1984. Sunflower competition in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:105–111.Google Scholar
11. Godel, G. L. 1935. Relation between rate of seeding and yield of cereal crops in competition with weeds. Sci. Agric. 19:21–23.Google Scholar
12. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Covariance Analysis. Page 424–457 in Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
13. Little, T. M. and Hills, F. J. 1978. Improving Precision. Page 283–294 in Agricultural Experimentation, Design and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
14. Pavlychenko, T. K. and Harrington, J. B. 1934. Competitive efficiency of weeds and cereal crops. Can. J. Res. 10:77–94.Google Scholar
15. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Tech. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
16. Stevens, O. A. 1943. Russian thistle life history and growth. North Dakota Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 326. 20 pp.Google Scholar
17. Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oil seed crops. Weed Sci. 33:34–43.Google Scholar
18. Wiese, A. F. and Vandiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Young, F. L. 1986. Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) growth and development in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 34:901–905.Google Scholar
20. Young, F. L. and Gealy, D. R. 1986. Control of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) with chlorsulfuron in a wheat (Triticum aestivum) summer fallow rotation. Weed Sci. 34:318–324.Google Scholar
21. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed crop competition: A review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 196 pp.Google Scholar