Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:54:46.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Competitive Duration of Blessed Milkthistle (Silybum marianum) with Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

Abdul Rehman ,
Rafi Qamar ,
Muhammad Ehsan Safdar ,
Atique-ur Rehman ,
Hafiz Muhammad Rashad Javeed ,
Muhammad Shoaib ,
Rizwan Maqbool  and
Tasawer Abbas
Abdul Rehman
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
Rafi Qamar*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
Muhammad Ehsan Safdar
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
Atique-ur Rehman
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
Hafiz Muhammad Rashad Javeed
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Vehari Campus, Pakistan
Muhammad Shoaib
Affiliation:
Agriculture Research Officer, Maize and Millets Research Institute, Yousufwala, Sahiwal, Pakistan
Rizwan Maqbool
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Tasawer Abbas
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
*
Author for correspondence: Rafi Qamar, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Blessed milkthistle is considered to be a noxious weed in irrigated and rainfed areas of Pakistan due to its strong allelopathic effects on food crops. For sustainable wheat production, it is necessary to know the critical time for weed removal (CTWR) for blessed milkthistle to allow wheat growers to get maximum benefit from control of this weed. A field study was conducted in 2014 and 2015 at the College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan, to investigate the CTWR of blessed milkthistle in wheat. The field experiments were designed with seven treatments; weed free (control); 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 wk after emergence (WAE); and weedy check. At 6 WAE, a significant reduction was noted in plant height (8% and 17%), number of productive tillers per square meter (16% and 16%), spike length (23% and 54%), grains per spike (13% and 34%), 1,000-grain weight (14% and 37%), grain yield (20% and 21%), and biological yield (24% and 50%) compared with control (weed-free plots) during 2014 and 2015, respectively. The logistic model supports the field study results and suggests that blessed milkthistle’s CTWR for wheat is 1 to 5 WAE based on acceptable yield losses of 5% to 15% during both years. The experimental results and logistic model indicate that blessed milkthistle should be controlled within 1 to 5 WAE to get better wheat crop harvests without compromising farmers’ profits. To our knowledge, this is the first study ever in Pakistan regarding the CTWR in terms of WAE of blessed milkthistle and could help other scientists create weed control strategies for other areas of the country.

Keywords

Drew Lyon, Washington State UniversityBlessed milkthistle, Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Weed emergenceweed competitioncrop growthgrain yieldweed interference
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 280 - 286
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Agostinetto, D, Rigoli, RP, Schaedler, CE, Tironi, SP, Santos, LS (2008) Critical period for weed competition with wheat. Planta Daninha 26:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, CM, Stephen, DM, Jack, TC (2004) Using row spacing to increase crop competition with weeds. September, 2004, Poster presentation at 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/poster/2/4/1/412_alfordcm.htmGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (1998) Agricultural Statistics of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Planning and Development Department, Islamabad, PakistanGoogle Scholar
Ansar, M, Shahzad, MA, Nasim, M, Musa, M, Shahid, HA (1996) Effect of nitrogen and weed density on maize growth and yield. J Agric Res 34:99–105Google Scholar
Armin, M, Noormohammadi, G, Zand, E, Baghestani, MA, Darvish, F (2007) Using plant density to increase competition ability in more and less competitive wheat cultivars with wild oat. Asian J Plant Sci 6:599–604Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Lemerle, D, Mailer, R, Young, KR (2002) Influence of wild radish on yield and quality of canola. Weed Sci 50:344–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambreau, D, MacLaren, PA (2007) Got milk thistle? An adaptive management approach to eradicating milk thistle on dairies in King County, Washington State. Pages 83–84 in Harrington TB, Reichard SH, tech. eds. Meeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-694Google Scholar
Cousens, R (1987) Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot Q 2:13–20Google Scholar
Freed, R, Eisensmith, SP, Goetz, S, Reicosky, D, Smail, VW, Wolberg, P (1991) Users Guide to MSTAT-C: a software program for the design, management, and analysis of agronomic research experiments. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
[GOP] Government of Pakistan (2015–2016) Pakistan Economic Survey. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan.Chapter number 03, Pp 19-40Google Scholar
Groves, RH, Kaye, PE (1989) Germination and phenology of seven introduced thistle species in Southern Australia. Aust J Bot 37:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, OP (2004) Modern Weed Management. 2nd ed. Jodhpur, India: Agrobios. Pp 18–23Google Scholar
Irshad, A (2000) Interference of Barnyard Grass (Echinochola crus-galli) and strategy of Its Control in Fine Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ph.D thesis. Faisalabad, Pakistan: Department of Agronomy, University of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Johnson, GA, Hoverstad, TR, Greenwald, RE (1998) Integrated weed management using narrow corn row spacing, herbicides, and cultivation. Agron J 90:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, GS (1986) Need for international crosschecking and correlation in soil analysis for international classification systems. Pages 276–293 in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Forum on Soil Taxonomy and Agro-Technology Transfer: Soil Survey of Pakistan. Volume 1. Lahore: Director General, Soil Survey of PakistanGoogle Scholar
Khan, IJ, Hassan, G, Ihsaullah, Khatak IA (2007) Effect of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) densities and proportions on yield and yield components of wheat. J Agri Biol Sci 2:26–31Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, SMS, Sundari, A (2002) Studies on the effect of major nutrients and crop–weed competition period in maize. Indian J Weed Sci 34:309–310Google Scholar
Martin, SG, Van Acker, RC, Friesen, LF (2001) Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci 49:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwat, MI, Ahmad, HK, Marwat, KB, Hassan, G (2003). Integrated weed management in wheat–II. Pak J Weed Sci Res 9:23–31Google Scholar
[MINFAL] Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Livestock (2011) Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan. Islamabad: Goverment of Pakistan. Pp 3–4Google Scholar
Oerke, EC, Dehne, HW, Schönbeck, F, Weber, A (1994) Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Parsons, WT (1973) Noxious Weeds of Victoria. Melbourne. Australia: Inkata Press. 300 pGoogle Scholar
Qasim, JR, Foy, CL (2001) Weed allelopathy: its ecological impacts and future prospect. J Crop Prod 4:43–120Google Scholar
Rajcan, I, Swanton, CJ (2001) Understanding maize–weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Res 71:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safdar, ME, Tanveer, A, Khaliq, A, Maqbool, R (2016) Critical competition period of parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) in maize. Crop Prot 80:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s Guide: The REG Procedure (Book Excerpt). Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Steel, RGD, Torrie, JH, Dicky, DA (1997) Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometric Approach. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp 178–198Google Scholar
Systat Software Inc. (2008) SigmaPlot for Windows (development and testing procedures). Version 11.0. Triestram and Partner GmbH, Bochum, GermanyGoogle Scholar