Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T10:00:15.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition between wild oat (Avena fatua) and yellow mustard (Sinapis alba) or canola (Brassica napus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Oleg Daugovish ,
Donald C. Thill  and
Bahman Shafii
Oleg Daugovish
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Bahman Shafii
Affiliation:
Statistical Programs, College of Agriculture, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2337
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild oat, a troublesome weed in small grain cereals, infests about 11 million ha of cropland in the United States. Diversifying cereal production with alternative crops, such as yellow mustard and canola, provides flexible cropping systems, decreases production risks, and may allow more effective weed suppression. A greenhouse study was conducted to assess the competitive ability of yellow mustard and canola with wild oat in 1999 and 2000, using replacement series interference experiments to relate the results to plant development stages. Yellow mustard, regardless of its proportion in mixture, reduced aboveground biomass of wild oat 33 to 66%, leaf and tiller number 34 to 36%, and panicle production 58% compared with wild oat in monoculture. Canola did not affect wild oat biomass in mixtures. Yellow mustard per plant biomass in 2000 and inflorescence production in 1999 decreased 30 and 20% with increased density of yellow mustard in mixtures. Yellow mustard biomass was not affected by the addition of wild oat to the mixture, indicating the greater importance of intraspecific competition between yellow mustard relative to interspecific competition with wild oat. Canola per plant biomass was affected more by interspecific competition with wild oat than by intraspecific competition. A second greenhouse experiment was conducted to compare plant height and biomass accumulation by the three species over 7 wk. Yellow mustard had the greatest biomass accumulation and plant elongation rate, followed by canola and wild oat. The greater competitive ability of yellow mustard with wild oat, compared with canola, is likely associated with the rapid growth and canopy elevation of yellow mustard.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAcanola, Brassica napus L. ‘Sunrise’yellow mustard, Sinapis alba L. ‘Idagold’Alternative cropsweed–crop interferenceplant competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 587 - 594
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

Barbour, M. G., Burk, J. H., and Pitts, W. D. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings. 189 p.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. S. 1995. Assessment of Weed Competition in Spring-Planted Canola (Brassica napus L.). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 78 p.Google Scholar
Brown, P. 1995. Chemical Characteristics and Biological Effects of Brassica Allelochemicals. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 29 p.Google Scholar
Brown, J., McCaffrey, J. P., and Harmon, B. L. 1999. Effect of late season insect infestation on yield, yield components and oil quality of Brassica napus, B. rapa, B. juncea and Sinapis alba in Pacific Northwest of United States. J. Agric. Sci. 132:281–288.Google Scholar
Chow, P.N.P. and Dorrell, D. G. 1979. Response of wild oat (Avena fatua), flax (Linum usitissimum) and rapeseed (Brassica campestris and B. napus) to diclofop-methyl. Weed Sci. 27:212–215.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., and Hall, A. E. 1991. Effect of wild oat (Avena fatua) infestations on light interception and growth rate of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 39:175–179.Google Scholar
Daugovish, O. 2001. Competitive Ability of Yellow Mustard (Sinapis alba L.) and Spring Canola (Brassica napus L.) with Wild Oat and Rotational Effects of Yellow Mustard. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 87 p.Google Scholar
Dehaan, R. L., Wyse, D. L., Ehlke, N. J., Maxwell, B. D., and Putnam, D. H. 1994. Simulation of spring-seeded smother plants for weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:35–43.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. and Keys, C. H. 1976. An index of competition for estimating loss of rape due to wild oats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:1005–1006.Google Scholar
de Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwkd. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1999. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. 736 p.Google Scholar
Esser, A. D. 1998. Agronomic and Economic Feasibility of Yellow Mustard (Sinapis alba L.) as an Alternative Crop in the Dryland Region of the Pacific Northwest. . University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 156 p.Google Scholar
Evans, R. M., Thill, D. C., Tapia, L., Shafii, B., and Lish, J. M. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) density affect spring barley grain. Weed Technol. 5:33–39.Google Scholar
Haizel, K. A. 1972a. The canopy relationships of pure and mixed populations of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) and wild oats (Avena fatua L.). J. Appl. Ecol. 9:589–600.Google Scholar
Haizel, K. A. 1972b. The productivity of mixtures of two and three species. J. Appl. Ecol. 9:601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, C. H. 1974. Effect of wild oat competition (time of removal) on rapeseed reproduction. Res. Rep. Can. Weed Comm. (West. Sec.):490.Google Scholar
Marshall, G., Morrison, I. N., Friesen, L., and Rother, W. 1989. Effects of ‘volunteer’ wheat and barley on the growth and yield of rapeseed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:445–453.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W. and Thill, D. C. 1988. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) growth and development in monoculture and mixed culture. Weed Sci. 36:43–48.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W., Thill, D. C., and Hammel, J. E. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) interference in a greenhouse experiment. Weed Sci. 39:149–153.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition for peas growing for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T. 1992. Seed yields of canola and volunteer barley as influenced by their relative time of emergence. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:263–267.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1988. Methods to study crop and weed interactions. Pages 121–142 In Weed Management in Agroecosytems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. J. 1980. Yield loss in barley associated with Sinapis arvensis L. (charlock) after continuous routine use of herbicide. Weed Res. 20:295–298.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationship between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1991. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed, Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 943 p.Google Scholar