Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:28:00.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of Agronomic Practices and Herbicides for Sustainable Weed Management in a Zero-Till Barley Field Pea Rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

Research is needed to develop more comprehensive integrated weed management systems that would facilitate greater adoption by farmers. A field study was conducted to determine the combined effects of seed date (April or May), seed rate (recommended or 150% of recommended), fertilizer timing (fall or spring applied), and in-crop herbicide rate (50 or 100% of recommended) on weed growth and crop yield. This factorial set of treatments was applied in four consecutive years within a barley-field pea–barley-field pea rotation in a zero-till production system. Both barley and field pea phases of the rotation were grown each year to account for variable environmental conditions over years. Weed biomass was often lower with May than with April seeding because of more weeds being controlled with preplant glyphosate. However, despite fewer weeds being present with May seeding, barley yield was only greater in 1 of 4 yr and field pea yield was actually lower with May than with April seeding in 3 of 4 yr, indicating that optimum seed date is highly dependent on crop species and environmental conditions. Higher crop seed rates reduced weed biomass and increased crop yield in 2 of 4 yr in each of barley and field pea. Fertilizer timing had little effect on weed competition in barley, but spring- compared with fall-applied fertilizer reduced weed biomass and increased field pea yield in 2 of 4 yr. In-crop herbicides applied at 50% compared with 100% rates sometimes resulted in greater weed biomass and lower crop yields with recommended crop seed rates, but few differences were noted at high crop seed rates. Indeed, the weed seed bank at the conclusion of the 4-yr study was not greater with the 50% compared with 100% herbicide rate when high crop seed rates were used. This study demonstrates the combined merits of early seeding (April), higher crop seed rates, and spring-applied fertilizer in conjunction with timely but limited herbicide use to manage weeds and maintain high yields in rotations containing barley and field pea.

Keywords

Glyphosatebarley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘AC Harper’field pea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Swing’Fertilizer timingintegrated weed managementreduced herbicide rateseed dateseed rateweed competitionIWMintegrated weed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 190 - 196
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

Blackshaw, R. E., Brandt, R. N., Janzen, H. H., and Entz, T. 2004a. Weed species response to phosphorus fertilization. Weed Sci. 52:406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., and Janzen, H. H. 2004b. Nitrogen fertilizer timing and application method affects weed growth and competition with spring wheat. Weed Sci. 52:614–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., and Li, X. 2002. Beyond herbicides: new approaches to managing weeds. Proceedings of the International conference on Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture for Dry Areas; Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China. Lethbridge, AB, Canada, Dobing Enterprises. Pp. 305–312.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., and O'Donovan, J. T. 2000. Utilization of wheat seed rate to manage redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) in a zero-tillage cropping system. Weed Technol. 14:389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J 94:174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, K. S., Arshad, M. A., and Moyer, J. R. 1997. Cultural control of weeds. in Pimental, D., ed. Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 237–275.Google Scholar
Grant, C. A., Peterson, G. A., and Campbell, C. A. 2002. Nutrient considerations for diversified cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J 94:186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N. 2001. Survey of yield losses due to weeds in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:339–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Weed management in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) in the absence of herbicides. J. Sustain. Agric 3:95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, K. J., Holm, F. A., and Stevenson, F. C. 2000. Appropriate crop seeding rate when herbicide rate is reduced. Weed Technol. 14:692–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. 2001. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 532 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technol. 14:624–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Newman, J. C., Robinson, D., and Hall, L. M. 2001. Barley seeding rate influences the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci. 49:746–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Phosphorus effects on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Sci. 46:307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.CrossRefGoogle 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