Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:17:37.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agronomic performance of Pesticide Free Production under two crop rotations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

A. Schoofs ,
M.H. Entz ,
R.C. Van Acker ,
J.R. Thiessen Martens  and
D.A. Derksen
A. Schoofs
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
M.H. Entz*
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
R.C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
J.R. Thiessen Martens
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada.
D.A. Derksen
Affiliation:
Brandon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon, MB, R7A 5Y3, Canada.
*
*Corresponding author: Email, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pesticide Free Production (PFP) is a pesticide reduction system that removes in-crop pesticide use on a yearly basis. A long-term study was established in 2000 to investigate the effect of crop rotation and frequency of inclusion on the success of PFP, as well as the effect of PFP on subsequent crops in the rotation. The crop rotations being compared were linola–oat–canola–wheat and linola–oat–alfalfa–alfalfa. PFP occurred either once in the rotation (oat) or twice (linola–oat). Weed density and yield were measured in the crops that followed PFP. Oat was a more successful PFP crop than linola because it was better able to compete with weeds. Furthermore, PFP oat had a higher weed density when it followed PFP linola, but this did not influence PFP oat yield. Under the conditions of this study, PFP linola was more successful in the annual crop rotation. Inclusion of alfalfa hay crops in the crop rotation was not effective in lowering weed pressure and, in fact, may have contributed to an increase in weed density. It is concluded that weed species present influenced the effectiveness of alfalfa in facilitating PFP, because major weeds in the study are not effectively controlled by alfalfa. PFP did not have a negative effect on following crops in the rotation (i.e. canola–wheat or alfalfa), regardless of whether one or two consecutive years of PFP occurred in the rotation. No additional herbicide was necessary for weed control in the crops that followed PFP; however, alfalfa hay was weedier for the first year following PFP. This study indicates that PFP is a viable way to reduce herbicide use in a cropping system and that attention needs to be paid to PFP crop selection and crop rotation, particularly when the PFP crop is less competitive with weeds.

Keywords

pesticide use reductioncrop rotationalfalfaintercropping
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 91 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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

1Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. 2004. About Us [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.saiplatform.org/about-us/default.htm verified 21 September 2004.Google Scholar
2Canola Council of Canada(2000) Final Report on Integrated Pest Management Practices Canola. Canola Council of Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
3Thomas, A.G., Leeson, J.Y., and Van Acker, R.C. 1999. Farm Management Practices in Manitoba: 1997 Weed Survey Questionnaire Results. Weed Survey Serial Publication, 99–3. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, SK.Google Scholar
4Derksen, D.A., Anderson, R.L., Blackshaw, R.E., Maxwell, B. (2002) Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94: 174–185Google Scholar
5Pesticide Free Production Canada. 2002. What is Pesticide Free Production? [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.pfpcanada.com/whatispfp.htm verified 8 January 2004. Pesticide Free Production Canada, Winnipeg, MB.Google Scholar
6Nazarko, O.M., Van Acker, R.C., Entz, M.H., Schoofs, A., Martens, G. (2003) Pesticide Free Production of field crops: Results of an on-farm pilot project. Agronomy Journal 95: 1262–1273Google Scholar
7Statistics Canada. 2001. The 2001 Census Handbook Online. Available at Web site http://www.statcan.ca/english/census2001/2001handbook/pdf/92-379-XIE02001.pdf verified 13 February 2004.Google Scholar
8Nazarko, O.M., Van Acker, R.C., Entz, M.H., Schoofs, A., Martens, G. (2004) Pesticide Free Production: Characteristics of farms and farmers participating in a pesticide use reduction pilot project in Manitoba, Canada. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:(1) 4–14Google Scholar
9Légère, A., Samson, N., Rioux, R., Angers, D.A., Simard, R.R. (1997) Response of spring barley to crop rotation, conservation tillage, and weed management intensity. Agronomy Journal 89: 628–638Google Scholar
10Derksen, D.A., Thomas, A.G., Lafond, G.P., Loeppky, H.A. (1996) Understanding weed community dynamics: Implications for weed management. In Brown, H. et al. (eds). Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25–29 June 49–54Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology, Flakkebjerg, Slagelse, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
11Stevenson, F.C., Johnson, A.M., Brandt, S.A., Townley-Smith, L. (2000) An assessment of reduced herbicide and fertilizer inputs on cereal grain yield and weed growth. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15: 2 60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Siemens, L.B. (1963) Weed control through crop rotations. In Cropping Systems: An Evaluative Review of Literature. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba Technical Bulletin 1. p. 35–37.Google Scholar
13Ball, D.A. (1992) Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Science 40: 654–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Thomas, A.G., Frick, B., Derksen, D.A., Brandt, S.A., and Zentner, R.P. 1996. Crop rotations and weed community dynamics on the Canadian prairies. In Brown, H. et al. (eds). Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25–29 June. Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology, Flakkebjerg, Slagelse, Denmark. p. 227–232.Google Scholar
15Kegode, G.O., Forcella, F., Clay, S. (1999) Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Science 45: 175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Entz, M.H., Bullied, W.J., Katepa-Mupondwa, F. (1995) Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 8: 4 521–529Google Scholar
17Ominski, P.D., Entz, M.H., Kenkel, N. (1999) Weed suppression by Medicago sativa in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey. Weed Science 47: 282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (2000) Field Crop Production Guide Winnipeg, Manitoba Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural InitiativesGoogle Scholar
19Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives(2003) Guide to Crop Protection 2003 Winnipeg, Manitoba Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural InitiativesGoogle Scholar
20Schoofs, A., Entz, M.H. (2000) Influence of annual forages on weed dynamics in a cropping system. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 80: 187–198Google Scholar
21Friesen, L.F., Nickel, K.P., Morrison, I.N. (1992) Round-leaved mallow ( Malva pusilla ) growth and interference in spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) and flax ( Linum usitatissimum ). Weed Science 40:(3) 448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Swanton, C.J., Weise, S.F. (1991) Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technology 5: 657–663Google Scholar
23Ross, D.M. (2001) Effect of nitrogen rate and weed density on spring wheat yield at two landscape positions. Plant Science Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.Google Scholar
24Pavlychenko, T.K., Harrington, J.B. (1934) Competitive efficiencies of weeds in cereal crops. Canadian Journal of Research 10: 77–94Google Scholar
25Bullied, W.J., Entz, M.H. (1999) Soil water dynamics after alfalfa as influenced by crop termination technique. Agronomy Journal 91: 294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Moyer, J.R., Hironaka, R. (1993) Digestible energy and protein content of some annual weeds, alfalfa, bromegrass, and tame oats. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 73: 1305–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Robinson, S.E., Alex, J.F. (1987) Poisoning of Livestock by Plants. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar