Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T14:25:50.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive attributes of A. sativa, T. aestivum, and H. vulgare are conserved in no-till cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Anne Légère  and
Yuguang Bai
Yuguang Bai
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Kamloops Range Research Unit, 3015 Ord Road, Kamloops, BC, Canada V2B 8A9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The robustness of competitive attributes of cereals such as rapid and uniform seedling emergence, tillering, early biomass accumulation and canopy closure, and height advantage over weeds have not yet been tested under environmental conditions typical of no-till (NT) cropping systems. Our objective was to evaluate the effects or NT practices on growth and productivity of Avena sativa, Triticum aestivum, Hordeum vulgare, and associated weeds. The experiment was conducted on a Kamouraska clay at La Pocatière, QC, in 1994, 1995, and 1996. Avena sativa, T. aestivum, and H. vulgare were grown under tilled and NT practices. Cereal growth parameters were measured six (1994) or seven (1995) times between planting and the 11th week after planting but only once in 1996. Grain yields and yield components were determined at crop maturity. Avena sativa and H. vulgare populations were little affected by tillage, whereas T. aestivum populations were reduced by 16 to 20% in NT systems. Growth in height in NT systems was either similar or greater than in tilled systems in all three cereals. Cereal leaf area index (LAI) and biomass accumulation was also comparable between tillage systems, except for T. aestivum LAI in 1994, which was greater in tilled plots on two sampling dates. Response of annual dicots to tillage was inconsistent in all crops. Annual monocots dominated in some but not all NT systems. Perennial dicots dominated in NT systems, whereas perennial monocots were more abundant in tilled systems in all three cereals. Avena sativa and T. aestivum yields in NT plots were comparable or greater than in tilled plots, in spite of having either lower test weights (A. sativa) or lower 1,000-grain weights (T. aestivum). NT T. aestivum productivity was maintained in spite of reduced plant establishment. Hordeum vulgare yields were also similar across tillage systems, except in 1995, when yields in tilled plots were greater than in NT plots. The height advantage observed for NT H. vulgare did not result in improved yields. All three cereals, and particularly A. sativa, appeared well suited to NT systems, despite the pressure provided by different weed groups, compared to tilled systems. However, results suggest that NT production of cereals could benefit from improved attention to perennial dicot control and crop seedling establishment, particularly for T. aestivum.

Keywords

Hordeum vulgare L., barleyAvena sativa L., oatTriticum aestivum L., wheatCompetitive abilitydirect seedingno-tillzero tillagespring barleyspring oatspring wheat
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 712 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Footnotes

For the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1999

References

Literature Cited

Andersson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1998. Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation and nitrogen. Weed Sci. 46:30–38.Google Scholar
Arshad, M. A., Gill, K. S., and Coy, G. R. 1995. Barley, canola, and weed growth with decreasing tillage in a cold semiarid climate. Agron. J. 87:49–55.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Differential competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars against downy brome. Agron. J. 86:649–654.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Populations dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Carter, M. R. 1991. Evaluation of shallow tillage for spring cereals on a fine sandy loam. 1. Growth and yield components, N accumulation and tillage economics. Soil Tillage Res. 21:23–35.Google Scholar
Carter, M. R. and Kunelius, H. T. 1990. Adapting conservation tillage in cool, humid regions. J. Soil Water Conserv. 45:454–456.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34:29–36.Google Scholar
[CPVQ] Conseil des Productions Végétales du Québec. 1988. Céréales de printemps—culture. Conseil des Productions Végétales du Québec. AGDEX 110/20. Québec, QC, Canada: Ministère de l'Agriculture des Pěcheries et de l'Alimentation. 167 p.Google Scholar
[CPVQ] Conseil des Productions Végétales du Québec. 1994. Grilles de référence en fertilisation. Conseil des Productions Végétales du Québec AGDEX 540. Québec, QC, Canada: Ministère de l'Agriculture des Pěcheries et de l'Alimentation. 91 p.Google Scholar
Deschěnes, J-M. and St-Pierre, C.-A. 1980. Effets des températures du sol, des dates de semis et des mauvaises herbes sur les composantes du rendement de l'avoine. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:61–68.Google Scholar
Proud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D.S.H. 1981. Potential changes in weed floras associated with reduced-tillage cultivation systems for cereal production in temperate regions. Weed Res. 21:99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, R. 1991. Plowing and non-plowing under Nordic conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 21:185–189.Google Scholar
Hucl, P. 1998. Response to weed control by four spring wheat genotypes differing in competitive ability. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78:171–173.Google Scholar
Huel, D. G. and Hucl, P. 1996. Genotypic variation for competitive ability in spring wheat. Plant Breed. 115:325–329.Google Scholar
Lafond, G. P., Derksen, D. A., Loeppky, H. A., and Struthers, D. 1994. An agronomic evaluation of conservation tillage systems and continuous cropping in East Central Saskatchewan. J. Soil Water Conserv. 49:387–393.Google Scholar
Lanning, S. P., Thalbert, L. E., Martin, J. M., Blake, T. K., and Bruckner, P. L. 1997. Genotype of wheat and barley affects light penetration and wild oat growth. Agron. J. 89:100–103.Google Scholar
Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., Izaurralde, R. C., and Moulin, A. P. 1994. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation on the Canadian prairies. Pages 305–328 in Outer, M. R., ed. Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Légère, A. 1997. Cereal planting dates as a tool in the management of Galeopsis tetrahit and associated weed species in spring barley and oat. Crop Prot. 2:117–125.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci. 47:112–122.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Samson, N., Rioux, R., Angers, D. A., and Simard, R. R. 1997. Response of spring barley to crop rotation, conservation tillage, and weed management intensity. Agron. J. 89:628–638.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Cousens, R. D., Verbeek, B., and Fisher, J. A. 1994. The potential to breed more competitive wheat cultivars. Pages 19–21 in Paull, J., Dundas, I., Shepherd, K., and Hollamby, G., eds. Proceedings of the 7th Assembly on Wheat Breeding Society of Australia.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. 1995. Losses in grain yield of winter crops from Lolium rigidum competition depend on crop species, cultivar and season. Weed Res. 35:503–509.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci. 44:634–639.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J., Lal, R., and Dick, W. A. 1991. Tillage systems and soil properties in North America. Soil Tillage Res. 20:241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutman, P.J.W., Dixon, F. L., and Risiot, R. 1994. The response of four spring-sown combinable arable crops to weed competition. Weed Res. 34:137–146.Google Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1409–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Calloway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:21–34.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr., and Seefeldt, S. S. 1999. Characterizing traits that enhance the competitiveness of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Sci. 47:74–80.Google Scholar
Peters, N.C.P. and Wilson, B. J. 1983. Some studies on the competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. II. Variation of A. fatua emergence and development and its influence on crop yield. Weed Res. 23:305–312.Google Scholar
Pollard, F. and Cussans, G. W. 1976. The influence of tillage on the weed flora of four sites sown to successive crops of spring barley. Pages 1019–1028 in Proceedings of the 1976 British Crop Protection Conference—Weeds.Google Scholar
Richards, M. C. and Davies, D.H.K. 1991. Potential for reducing herbicide inputs/rates with more competitive cereal cultivars. Pages 1233–1240 in Proceedings of the 1991 British Crop Protection Conference—Weeds.Google Scholar
Rydberg, T. 1992. Ploughless tillage in Sweden. Results and experiences from 15 years of field trials. Soil Tillage Res. 22:253–264.Google Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32:483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Satorre, E. H. and Snaydon, R. W. 1992. A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 32:45–55.Google Scholar
Vyn, T. J., Janovicek, K., and Carter, M. R. 1994. Tillage requirements for annual crop production in eastern Canada. Pages 47–71 in Carter, M. R., ed. Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Wibberley, E. J. 1989. Cereal Husbandry. Ipswich, Great Britain: Farming Press Books. 258 p.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Ramsel, R. E., Norquist, P. T., Schmidt, J. W., and Challaiah, R. E. 1986. Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of annual weeds. Agron. J. 78:59–62.Google Scholar
Wrucke, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distribution as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:853–856.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14:415–421.Google Scholar