Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:21:30.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild oat (Avena fatua) habitat and water use in cereal grain cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lee R. Van Wychen ,
Bruce D. Maxwell ,
Alvin J. Bussan ,
Perry R. Miller  and
Edward C. Luschei
Lee R. Van Wychen
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Alvin J. Bussan
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Perry R. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Edward C. Luschei
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The advent of site-specific weed management has generated research aimed at predicting weed spatial distributions from existing weed maps or correlations with soil properties and edaphic factors. Forecasting the spatial distribution of annual weeds requires knowledge of fecundity, dispersal, management, and suitable habitat distribution. We hypothesized that wild oat habitat was limited by field-scale heterogeneity in plant-available water. We eliminated seed number and dispersal limitations by seeding wild oat in areas with and without historical wild oat patches in three similarly managed spring wheat fields that differed in soil properties and wild oat infestations and were situated within a 160-km radius of Great Falls, MT. Wild oat habitat was quantified by wild oat leaf area growth rate, mature shoot biomass, seeds produced per plant, biomass water use efficiency, and competitive ratio with spring wheat. Soil texture and plot elevation correlated with existing wild oat patch areas in individual fields, but no site properties consistently correlated with wild oat patch areas in all three fields. Soil water use (SWU) and almost all habitat-defining variables for wild oat were similar between historic patch and nonpatch areas. Wild oat grew and produced seed regardless of existing patch boundaries and field-scale heterogeneity in SWU. This research suggested that (1) wild oat habitat may be unlimited in cereal grain cropping systems of the Northern Great Plains and (2) soil properties are a poor predictor of weed distribution for a generalist such as wild oat.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAspring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Competitive ratiodispersalfecunditymanagementspatial distributionwater use efficiency
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 2004 , pp. 352 - 358
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Auld, B. A. 1988. Dynamics of pasture invasion by three weeds, Avena fatua L., Carduus tenuiflorus Curt. and Onopordum acanthium L. Aust. J. Agric. Res 39:589–596.Google Scholar
Bagyaraj, D. J. and Varma, A. 1995. Interaction between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plants. Their importance in sustainable agriculture in arid and semiarid tropics. Adv. Microb. Ecol 14:119–142.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no- till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:258–268.Google Scholar
Clay, S. A., Lems, G. J., Clay, D. E., Forcella, F., Ellsbury, M. M., and Carlson, C. G. 1999. Sampling weed spatial variability on a fieldwide scale. Weed Sci 47:674–681.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Forcella, F., and Johnson, G. A. 2000. Spatial and temporal stability of weed populations over five years. Weed Sci 48:366–377.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1997. The structure of plant communities. Pages 475–531 in Crawley, M. J., ed. Plant Ecology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., Corbett, C. J., and Bendixen, W. E. 1989. Developmental rates of wild oats (Avena fatua) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 37:521–524.Google Scholar
de Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwkd. Onderz 66:1–82.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci 47:81–89.Google Scholar
Ellenberg, H. 1953. Physiologisches und ökologisches Verhalten derselben Pflanzenarten. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges 65:351–361.Google Scholar
Faechner, T., Hall, L. M., and MacMillan, R. 2000. Landscape influence on wild oat (Avena fatua) distribution. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 40:101–102.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. and Reed, W. B. 1974. Distribution of wild oat seeds during cereal crop swathing and combining. Pages 1–10 in Proceedings of the 1974 Annual Meeting of Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering. Paper No. 74–303. Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada: Laval University.Google Scholar
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1979. Particle size analysis by hydrometer: a simplified method for routine textural analysis and a sensitivity test of measurement parameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 43:1004–1007.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L., Perry, J. N., and Moss, S. R. 1999. Modeling effects of spatial patterns on the seed bank dynamics of Alopecurus myosuroides . Weed Sci 47:697–705.Google Scholar
Holmes, E. E. 1997. Basic epidemiological concepts in a spatial context. Pages 111–136 in Tilman, D. and Kareiva, P. eds. Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. New York: McGraw-Hill. 281 p.Google Scholar
Jones, R. and Medd, R. 1997. Economic analysis of integrated management of wild oats involving fallow, herbicide and crop rotational options. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 37:683–691.Google Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S. III, and Pons, T. L. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York: Springer. Pp. 376–474.Google Scholar
Lichthardt, J. J. and Jacobsen, J. S. 1999. Fertilizer Guidelines for Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension Service, EB 104. Pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
Luschei, E., Van Wychen, L. R., Maxwell, B. D., Bussan, A. J., Buschena, D., and Goodman, D. 2001. Implementing and conducting on-farm weed research with the use of GPS. Weed Sci 49:536–542.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Ghersa, C. 1992. The influence of weed seed dispersion versus the effect of competition on crop yield. Weed Technol 6:196–204.Google Scholar
Montana Agricultural Statistics. 2001. Montana Agricultural Statistics. www.nass.usda.gov/mt/bulletin/BulletinDist2001.pdf.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Young, L. J. 1993. Weed distribution in agricultural fields. Pages 113–124 in Robert, P. and Rust, R. H. eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSA.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. E., Kephart, K. D., Bauer, A., and Connor, J. E. 1988. Cereal grain development scales. Pages 22–23 in Growth Staging of Wheat, Barley, and Wild Oat: A Strategic Step to Timing of Field Operations. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension. Miscellaneous Bulletin 4387.Google Scholar
Padbury, G., Waltman, S., Caprio, J., Coen, G., McGinn, S., Mortensen, D., Nielsen, G., and Sinclair, R. 2002. Agroecosystems and land resources of the Northern Great Plains. Agron J 94:251–261.Google Scholar
Perez, F. and Ormeno, N. J. 1991. Effect of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) root exudates on seedlings of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Agric. Tec. (Santiago) 51:166–177.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. A., Schlegel, A. J., Tanaka, D. L., and Jones, O. R. 1996. Precipitation use efficiency as affected by cropping and tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric 9:180–186.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J. and Cousens, R. D. 2001. Spatial distribution of weeds in arable crops: are current sampling and analytical methods appropriate? Weed Res 41:1–18.Google Scholar
Rillig, M. C., Allen, M. F., Kilronomos, J. N., Chiariello, N. R., and Field, C. B. 1998. Plant species-specific changes in root-inhabiting fungi in a California annual grassland: responses to elevated CO2 and nutrients. Oecologia (Berl.) 113:252–259.Google Scholar
Sexsmith, J. J. 1955. Delayed seeding of wheat and barley for the control of wild oats. Res. Rep. 12th N. Cent. Weed Control Conf 52:82.Google Scholar
Shirtliffe, S. J., Entz, M. H., and Van Acker, R. C. 2000. Avena fatua development and seed shatter as related to thermal time. Weed Sci 48:555–560.Google Scholar
Thurston, J. M. 1962. The effect of competition from cereal crops on the germination and growth of Avena fatua L. in a naturally infested field. Weed Res 2:192–207.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R. 2002. Field-Scale Spatial Distribution, Water Use, and Habitat of Wild Oat in the Semiarid Northern Great Plains. Ph.D. dissertation. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. 155 p.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Luschei, E. C., Bussan, A. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 2002. Accuracy and cost effectiveness of GPS-assisted wild oat mapping in spring cereal crops. Weed Sci 50:120–129.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. and Rao, M. R. 1980. A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Exp. Agric 16:117–125.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., and Marx, D. B. 2001. Within-field soil heterogeneity effects on herbicide-mediated crop injury and weed biomass. Weed Sci 49:798–805.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Brain, P. 1991. Long-term stability of distribution of Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. within cereal fields. Weed Res 31:367–373.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 232–250.Google Scholar