Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:57:39.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Leafy and Semileafless Pea for Integrated Weed Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Neil Harker ,
George W. Clayton  and
Robert E. Blackshaw
K. Neil Harker*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
George W. Clayton
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The majority of dry pea (pea) cultivars in current production have semileafless architecture. Although these cultivars tend to yield well and resist lodging, they may not be the best cultivars in terms of competition with weeds. Experiments were conducted at Lacombe and Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, from 2003 to 2005 to compare semileafless and leafy pea cultivars under different seeding and herbicide regimes. During the study, in terms of weed emergence and biomass, oat (seeded) was usually more dominant than broadleaf weeds. Higher-disturbance sweep seeding led to slightly greater oat populations than lower disturbance seeding with knives. Leafy pea had lower yield potential in less weedy conditions than the semileafless pea, but the former were less susceptible to yield reduction as weed competition increased. Leafy pea often led to lower weed biomass and dockage than the semileafless pea. However, because semileafless pea yield at least as well as leafy pea in all of the environments encountered in this study, integrated weed management principles are currently best served by growing semileafless pea. Breeding to improve leafy cultivar yield potential may lead to greater opportunities for integrated weed management and herbicide input reductions in the future.

Keywords

Imazamoximazethapyrdry pea, Pisum sativum L.oat, Avena sativa L.Canopy architecturecompetitioninterferencesemileafless
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 124 - 131
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

Ali-Khan, S. T. 1986. Tipu field pea. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66:1015–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alm, D. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr, and Hesketh, J. D. 1991. Weed phenology. Pages 191–218. in Hodges, T., editor. Predicting Crop Phenology. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Górski, T. 1975. Germination of seeds in the shadow of plants. Physiol. Plant. 34:342–346.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. 2001. Survey of yield losses due to weeds in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:339–342.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Clayton, G. W. 2001. Timing weed removal in field peas (Pisum sativum). Weed Technol. 15:277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Clayton, G. W. 2007. Wild oat (Avena fatua) versus redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) interference in dry pea. Weed Technol. 21:235–240.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2007. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Available: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: October 3, 2007.Google Scholar
Heneise, H. K. and Murray, G. A. 1980. Effect of row spacing on yield of spring planted Australian winter field pea. Agron. J. 72:369–371.Google Scholar
King, T. J. 1975. Inhibition of seed germination under leaf canopies in Arenaria serpyllifolia, Veronica arvensis and Cerastum (sic) holosteoides . New Phytol. 75:87–90.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M. 1983. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the crop. Weed Res. 23:27–38.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milmliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 656.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Stroup, W. W., and Freund, R. J. 2002. SAS for Linear Models (4th ed.). Cary, NC SAS Institute. 466.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W., Dixon, F. L., and Risiott, R. 1994. The response of four spring-sown combinable arable crops to weed competition. Weed Res. 34:137–146.Google Scholar
May, W. E., Lafond, G. P., Johnson, E. N., Hogg, T., Johnston, A. M., Nybo, B., Harker, N., and Clayton, G. 2003. An assessment of the concept of early time of weed removal in field pea using natural weed populations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:423–431.Google Scholar
Miller, P. R., McConkey, B. G., Clayton, G. W., Brandt, S. A., Staricka, J. A., Johnston, A. M., Lafond, G. P., Schatz, B. G., Baltensperger, D. D., and Neill, K. E. 2002. Pulse crop adaptation in the Northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:261–272.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001a. Weed life history: identifying vulnerabilities. Pages 40–98. in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., editors. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001b. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 269–321. in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., editors. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novoplansky, A. 1991. Developmental responses of portulaca seedlings to conflicting spectral signals. Oecologia 88:138–140.Google Scholar
Park, B. and Lopetinsky, K., editors. 1999. Pulse Crops in Alberta. 1st ed. Edmonton, Canada Agriculture and Food, Alberta Government. Agdex 142/20-1. 149.Google Scholar
Przednowek, D. W. A., Entz, M. H., Irvine, B., Flaten, D. N., and Martens, J. R. T. 2004. Rotational yield and apparent N benefits of grain legumes in southern Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:1093–1096.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food 2007. Varieties of grain crops, 2007. Available online: http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/docs/production/var2007.pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2007.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. 1980. Leaf-canopy-induced seed dormancy in a grassland flora. New Phytol. 85:109–118.Google Scholar
Townley-Smith, L. and Wright, A. T. 1994. Field pea cultivar and weed response to crop seed rate in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1996. Effect of cultivar selection on metribuzin efficacy in field pea (Pisum sativum). Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:531–535.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Friesen, G. H., and Bhati, T. K. 1991. Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless field peas. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:473–480.Google Scholar