Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:21:58.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of herbicide use, fungicide use and position in the field on the yield and yield components of spring barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

N. D. Boatman
N. D. Boatman
Affiliation:
The Cereals and Gamebirds Research Project, The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Six experiments were carried out over 2 years (1985 and 1986) in commercial spring barley crops on calcareous soils in Hampshire. Herbicides increased grain yield by 0·05–1·21 t/ha, and fungicides by 0·01–0·68 t/ha. Herbicide use affected each of the yield components ears/plant, grains/ear, 1000-grain weight and harvest index in one or more cases but the effects were not consistent between experiments or consistently related to yield increases. Fungicide use had little effect on yield components other than 1000-grain weight, which was significantly increased in all experiments. There were no significant herbicide × fungicide interactions. Large differences in yield were recorded between field edge (headland) and midfield plots, with headland plots outyielding the midfield in two of the three experiments where this effect was considered.

The effects of fungicide use were accounted for by associated increases in the green lamina area of the flag leaf and second leaf at the late milk stage of grain development. This is consistent with previous work. Differences in yield response to herbicide between sites were linearly related both to weed numbers early in the season and to weed biomass at harvest. Weeds did not always directly replace crop biomass; in some experiments the combined dry matter production was greater when herbicide was not used. However, the results indicate that, where a diverse weed flora composed of species of moderate to low competitive ability is present, simple weed counts may provide a useful indication of potential yield loss.

It is concluded that headland areas can often be as productive as the rest of the field, but a greater understanding of the factors involved is needed if this potential is to be realized.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 118 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 17 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

REFERENCES

Boatman, N. D. & Sotherton, N. W. (1988). The agronomic consequences and costs of managing field margins for game and wildlife conservation. Aspects of Applied Biology 17, 47–56.Google Scholar
Boatman, N. D., Dover, J. W., Wilson, P. J., Thomas, M. B. & Cowgill, S. E (1989). Modification of farming practice at field margins to encourage wildlife. In Biological Habitat Reconstruction (Ed. Buckley, P.), pp. 299–311. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
Courtney, A. D. & Johnson, R. T. (1986). An assessment of weed populations and yield response in spring barley subjected to a programme of reduced herbicide usage. Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium — Economic Weed Control, pp. 301–308. Stuttgart-Hohenheim: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Courtney, A. D. & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Crop equivalents of weeds in spring barley. Aspects of Applied Biology 18, 57–62.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. (1985). A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Annals of Applied Biology 107, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. H. K. (1988). Yield responses to the use of herbicides in cereal crops; East of Scotland trials 1979–88. Aspects of Applied Biology 18, 47–56.Google Scholar
Davies, D. H. K., Whiting, A. J. & Whytock, G. M. (1989). Yield responses to herbicide use and weed levels in winter wheat and spring barley in Scottish trials and consequences for economic models. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds 1989, pp. 955–960. Farnham: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Fielder, A. G. (1987). Management options for field margins: an Agricultural Advisor's view. In Field Margins, BCPC Monograph No. 35 (Eds Way, J. M. & Greig-Smith, P. W.), pp. 85–94. Thornton Heath: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Fisher, N. M., Davies, D. H. K. & Richards, M. C. (1988). Weed severity and crop losses in conservation headlands in south-east Scotland. Aspects of Applied Biology 18, 37–46.Google Scholar
James, W. C. (1967). Assessment of barley leaf blotch and its effect on spring barley yield. Proceedings of the Fourth British Insecticide and Fungicide Conference, pp. 111–114. London: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. (1985). A review of yield responses to weed control in one thousand spring barley experiments. Proceedings of the 1985 British Crop Protection Conference- Weeds, pp. 687–692. Croydon: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. J. P. (1989). Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. Journal of Applied Ecology 26, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J. K. (1967). The effect of shelter on the productivity of grasslands and field crops. Field Crop Abstracts 20, 1–14.Google Scholar
Peters, N. C. B. (1984). Time of onset of competition and effects of various fractions of an AvenafatuaL. population on spring barley. Weed Research 24, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priestley, R. H. & Bayles, R. A. (1982). Effect of fungicide treatment on yield of winter wheat and spring barley cultivars. Plant Pathology 31, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotherton, N. W., Rands, M. R. W. & Moreby, S. J. (1985). Comparison of herbicide treated and untreated headlands on the survival of game and wildlife. 1985 British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds, pp. 991–998. Croydon: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Tonkin, M. H. & Silvey, V. (1982). Variability of cereal variety yields from fungicide sprayed and unsprayed plots. Journal of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany 16, 15–30.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R. (1987). The decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 110, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wale, S. J. & Hunter, E. A. (1985). A comparison of fungicides for the control of mildew on spring barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J. (1986). Yield responses of winter cereals to the control of broad-leaved weeds. Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium - Economic Weed Control, pp. 75–82. Stuttgart-Hohenheim: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. & Peters, N. C. B. (1982). Some studies of competition between Avenafatua L. and spring barley, 1. The influence of A. fatua on yield of barley. Weed Research 22, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J. & Wright, K. J. (1990). Predicting the growth and competitive effects of annual weeds in wheat. Weed Research 30, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. J. (1989). The distribution of arable weed seedbanks and the implications for the conservation of endangered species and communities. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds 1989, pp. 1081–1086. Farnham: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar