Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T02:47:33.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appropriate Crop Seeding Rate When Herbicide Rate is Reduced

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ken J. Kirkland ,
F.A. Holm  and
F. Craig Stevenson
Ken J. Kirkland
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, RR #1, Vermilion, AB, Canada T9X 1Y6
F.A. Holm*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
206A Dunlop Street, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2B7
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted at three locations in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1996 and 1997 to determine if increasing the seeding rate of wheat, barley, and lentil by 50% would maintain weed control and crop yield when herbicides are applied at reduced rates or not at all. Three herbicide rates (½ of full, ¾ of full, and full recommended label rate), along with an untreated check, two crop seeding rates (normally recommended and 1.5 times normally recommended rates), and three crops were tested. Increasing seeding rate did not affect weed fresh weights, crop yield, and net return responses to herbicides applied at reduced rates or not at all when averaged across crops, years, and locations. Increased seeding rate, independent of the different herbicide applications, had infrequent and inconsistent effects among the crop by year by location combinations. More broadleaf and grass weed growth, less crop yield, and lower net returns generally occurred when herbicides were not applied or applied at reduced rates. These trends were especially prominent when herbicides were not applied to cereal crops at Saskatoon (40% yield reduction) and when herbicides were applied at ½ the full label rate rather than higher herbicide rates to wheat at the other two locations (16% yield reduction). In 1996, lentil yield and net returns did not respond to herbicide application and rate because of poor grass weed control across all herbicide rates. Lentil yield and net returns decreased by 11% (full vs. ¾), 22% (¾ vs. ½), and 46% (½ vs. none) when herbicides were applied at progressively lower rates in 1997. Reduced herbicide rates did not affect net returns for cereal crops, indicating that herbicide rates lower than the full label rate may be economically viable in certain crops.

Keywords

Barley, Hordeum vulgare L.hard red spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.lentil, Lens culinaris MedicIntegrated weed managementweed interferenceeconomic return
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 692 - 698
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

Ball, D. A., Ogg, A. G. Jr., and Chevalier, P. M. 1997. The influence of seeding rate on weed control in small-red lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Sci. 45: 296–300.Google Scholar
Barton, D. L., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Integrated wild oat (Avena fatua) management affects spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) yield and economics. Weed Technol. 6: 129–135.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, A. R. 1988. Competition for resources in weed-crop mixtures. In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 89–119.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Young, F. L. 1995. Effect of postplant tillage and crop density on broadleaf weed control in dry pea (Pisum sativum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Technol. 9: 99–106.Google Scholar
Holm, F. A., Kirkland, K. J., and Stevenson, F. C. 2000. Defining optimum herbicide rates and timing for wild oat control in spring wheat. Weed Technol. 14: 167–175.Google Scholar
Khan, M., Donald, W. W., and Prato, T. 1996. Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) management can substitute for diclofop for foxtail (Setaria spp.) control. Weed Sci. 44: 362–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Weed management in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) in the absence of herbicides. J. Sustain. Agric. 3: 95–104.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., Cousens, R. D., and Combes, N. E. 1996. The potential for selecting wheat varieties strongly competitive against weeds. Weed Res. 36: 505–513.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. 656 p.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological bases for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 468–474.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. and Newman, J. C. 1996. Manipulation of canola (Brassica rapa) plant density and herbicide rate for economical and sustainable weed management. In Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress, 25-28 June 1996, Copenhagen, Denmark. Flakkebjerg, Slagelse, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology. pp. 969–974.Google Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32: 483–491.Google Scholar
Spandl, E., Durgan, B. R., and Miller, D. W. 1997. Wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 11: 591–597.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C. and Wright, A. T. 1996. Seeding rate and row spacing affect flax yields and weed interference. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76: 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1983. Weed crop competition: analyzing the problem. Span 26: 56–58.Google Scholar
Zoschke, A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed Technol. 8: 376–386.Google Scholar