Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:19:06.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed suppression by Medicago sativa in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. D. Ominski ,
M. H. Entz  and
N. Kenkel
P. D. Ominski
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
N. Kenkel
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ability of Medicago sativa to suppress weed growth may provide a viable alternative to chemical weed control and allow crop producers to reduce herbicide inputs. Quantitative information regarding the suppressive effect of M. sativa on weed populations in current cropping systems is lacking. A survey was conducted in Manitoba, Canada, in 1993 and 1994 to investigate weed populations in commercial cereal fields that had been preceded by either M. sativa hay or cereal grain crops. A total of 117 fields were surveyed; approximately half from each field type. Principle component analysis indicated that the inclusion of M. sativa in crop rotations resulted in weed communities different from those of continuous cereal fields. Naturally occurring populations of Avena fatua, Cirsium arvense, Brassica kaber, and Galium aparine were lower in cereal fields that had previously contained M. sativa than in cereal fields that had been preceded by a cereal crop. Lower field uniformity values for C. arvense and Avena fatua indicated that these weeds were also more patchy in the M. sativa rotations. Population differences between field types were nonsignificant for Amaranthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album, and Polygonum convolvulus, and although populations of Taraxacum officinale and Thlaspi arvense were greater in M. sativa/cereal fields than in continuous cereal crops. No consistent effect of field type on Setaria viridis populations was observed. These results show that M. sativa effectively suppressed some, but not all, of the weeds found in the study area. Including M. sativa hay crops in crop rotations can be part of an integrated weed management strategy for weeds such as A. fatua, B. kaber, and C. arvense.

Keywords

Medicago sativa L. MEDSA, alfalfaAvena fatua L. AVEFA, wild oatsCirsium arvense (L.) Scop. CIRAR, Canada thistleBrassica kaber (DC.) L. C. Wheeler SINAR, wild mustardGalium aparine L. GALAP, catchweed bedstrawAmaranthus retroflexus L. AMARE, redroot pigweedChenopodium album L. CHEAL, common lambsquartersPolygonum convolvulus L. POLCO, wild buckwheatTaraxacum officinale, Weber in Wiggers TAROF, dandelionThlapsi arvense L. THLAR, field pennycressSetaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVI, green foxtail.Alternative weed controlrelative abundanceweed/crop ecologyweed suppressionweed patchinessAMAREAVEFACHEALCIRARGALAPMEDSAPOLCOSINARSETVITAROFTHLAR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , June 1999 , pp. 282 - 290
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1997. Cleavers Costs You Money. Cleavers Factsheet. Carman, MB: Manitoba Agriculture, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 10 p.Google Scholar
Black, C. C. Jr. 1973. Photosynthetic carbon fixation in relation to net CO2 uptake. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24:258–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1993. Weed science—the step child. Weed Technol. 7:515–518.Google Scholar
Champness, S. S. 1949. Notes on the buried seed populations beneath different types of ley in their seeding year. J. Ecol. 37:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chepil, W. S. 1946. Germination of weed seeds: I. Longevity, periodicity of germination, and vitality of seeds in cultivated soil. Sci. Agric. 26:307–346.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derscheid, L. A., Russel, L. N., and Wicks, G. A. 1961. Thistle control with cultivation, cropping and chemicals. Weeds 9:90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rev. Weed Sci. 5:193–250.Google Scholar
Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., Morrison, I. N., and Maw, M. G. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 70. Setaria viridis (L) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entz, M. H., Bullied, W. J., and Katepa-Mupondwa, F. 1995. Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. J. Prod. Agric. 8:521–529.Google Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1337–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. H. 1993. Relating two sets of variables in environmental studies. Pages 149–163 in Patil, G. and Rao, C., eds. Multivariate Environmental Statistics. The Hague: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–79 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, I., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. M. 1958. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense Scop.) control with cultivation, cropping, and chemical sprays. Weeds 6:1–12.Google Scholar
Hunter, H. H., Morrison, I. N., and Rourke, D. R. 1990. The Canadian prairie provinces. Pages 51–89 in Donald, W. W., ed. Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America. Monograph 6. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Google Scholar
Jongman, R. H., Ter Braak, C. J., and Van Tongeren, O. F. 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 299 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legere, A. 1993. Perennial weeds in conservation tillage systems: more of an issue than in conventional tillage systems? Pages 747–752 in Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Volume 2. Brighton, U.K.: Brighton Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Wallinga, J., and Kropff, M. J. 1995. Crop–weed interactions: quantification and prediction. Pages 31–47 in Glen, D. M., Greaves, M. P., and Anderson, H. M., eds. Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems. Bristol, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Manly, B.F.J. 1994. Multivariate Statistical Methods, A Primer. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall. 159 p.Google Scholar
Mead, R., Curnow, R. N., and Hasted, A. M. 1993. Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall. 415 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 13. Cirsium Arvense (L.) Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:1033–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, D. F. 1990. Multivariate Statistical Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. 495 p.Google Scholar
Pavlychenko, T. K. 1942. Root Systems of Certain Forage Crops in Relation to Their Management of Agricultural Soils. National Research Council of Canada and Dominion Department of Agriculture N.R.C. 1088. 88 p.Google Scholar
Pearcy, R. W., Tumosa, N., and Williams, K. 1981. Relationships between growth and competitive interactions for a C3 and a C4 plant. Oecologia 48:371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. J. and Linscott, D. L. 1988. Weeds and weed control. Pages 705–735 in Hanson, A. A., Barnes, D. K., and Hill, R. R., eds. Alfalfa and Alfalfa Improvement. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Podani, J. 1993. SYN-TAX-pc Computer Programs for Multivariate Data Analysis in Ecology and Systematics. Version 5.0. Budapest, Hungary: Scientia Publishing.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Gersha, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 589 p.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1973. Emergence and longevity of seeds of annual weeds in cultivated and undisturbed soil. J. Appl. Ecol. 10:133–143.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Maxwell, B. D. 1990. Future outlook for herbicide-resistance research. Weed Technol. 4:208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoner, C. A., Norris, R. F., and Chilcote, W. 1978. Yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens) biotype studies: growth and morphological characteristics. Weed Sci. 6:632–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoofs, A. 1997. The Role of Annual Forages in Integrated Weed Management. M.Sc. thesis. University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, MB. 142 p.Google Scholar
Siemens, L. B. 1963. Cropping Systems: An Evaluative Review of Literature. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba Technical Bull. 1. 89 p.Google Scholar
Stahler, L. M. 1948. Shade and soil moisture as factors in competition between selected crops and field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis . J. Am. Soc. Agron. 40:490–502.Google Scholar
Stupnicka-Rodzynkiewicz, E. 1996. Changes in population sizes of weeds in cereals grown in a five-year rotation. Pages 185–190 in Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Weed Control Congress.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed. Sci. 33:34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Donaghy, D. I. 1991. A survey of the occurrence of seedling weeds in spring annual crops in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:811–820.Google Scholar
Thomas, 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. Pages 227–232 in Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Weed Control Congress.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Kelner, D., Wise, R. F., and Frick, B. L. 1997. Manitoba Weed Survey (Publication 97–1), Comparing Zero and Conventional Tillage Crop Production Systems 1994. Carman, Manitoba: Manitoba Agriculture, Soils and Crops Branch.Google Scholar
Thurston, J. M. 1966. Survival of seeds of wild oats (Avena fatua L. and Avena ludoviciana Dur.) and charlock (Sinapis arvensis L.) in soil under leys. Weed Res. 6:67–80.Google Scholar
Todd, B. G. and Derkson, D. A. 1986. Perennial weed control in wheat in Western Canada. Pages 391–404 in Slinkard, A. E. and Fowler, D. B., eds. Wheat Production in Canada—A Review. Proc. Canadian Wheat Symp. March 3–5, 1986. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1994. New technologies and approaches for weed management in sustainable agriculture systems. Weed Technol. 8:403–407.Google Scholar