Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:42:29.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timing Weed Removal in Field Pea (Pisum sativum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Neil Harker ,
Robert E. Blackshaw  and
George W. Clayton
K. Neil Harker*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Centre, Box 3000 Main Postal Station, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1
George W. Clayton
Affiliation:
Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1 Contribution 941
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1996, 1997, and 1998 at Lacombe and Lethbridge, AB, to determine the influence of early weed competition on field pea yields. Wild oat and Tartary buckwheat were removed from plots at weekly intervals after pea emergence by hand-weeding and maintained weed-free for the remainder of the growing season. Tartary buckwheat produced slightly more biomass than wild oat at Lacombe, whereas wild oat produced much more biomass than Tartary buckwheat at Lethbridge. Weed-free pea yields at Lacombe were always two- to threefold higher than at Lethbridge. At Lethbridge, early competition with Tartary buckwheat in all years, and with wild oat in 1998, did not reduce pea yields. In 1996 and 1997 at Lethbridge, pea yield reductions due to wild oat began at 2 wk after pea emergence; for the next 2 wk yield loss was linear, decreasing at an average rate of 97 kg/ha per day. Early weed competition led to pea yield losses at Lacombe in all 3 yr. The onset of yield loss at Lacombe over the 3-yr period ranged from 1 to 2 wk after pea emergence; for the next 2 to 3 wk yield loss was linear, decreasing at an average rate of 45 kg/ha per day. Yield losses after full-season weed competition ranged from 40 to 70% at both sites. Usually, the beginning of the critical weed-free period was at 1 or 2 wk after pea emergence. Optimum pea yields usually required weed removal very early in the pea life cycle; weed removal beyond 2 wk after pea emergence often protected only suboptimal yields.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. #3 AVEFATartary buckwheat, Fagopyrum tataricum (L.) J. Gaertnpea, Pisum sativum L. CarreraCritical weed-free periodcrop-weed interferenceduration of competitionAVEFAPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 277 - 283
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, S. 2000. Crop Protection 2000. Edmonton, AB: Publishing Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 462 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Postemergence weed control in pea (Pisum sativum) with imazamox. Weed Technol. 12: 64–68.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and O'Donovan, J. T. 1993. Higher crop seed rates can aid weed management. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 3: 1003–1008.Google Scholar
Clayton, G., Rice, W., Blade, S., Grant, C., Harker, N., Johnston, A., Lafond, G., and Lupwayi, N. 1998. Minimizing risk and increasing yield stability in field pea production. In 1998 Direct Seeding Conference—Fine Tuning the System. Indian Head, SK: Saskatchewan Soil Conserv. Assn. pp. 31–41.Google Scholar
Clayton, G. W., Rice, W. A., and Harker, K. N. 1997. Field pea production: Increasing yield stability. In Agronomy Abstracts. Madison, WI: Am. Soc. Agron./Crop Sci. Soc. Am./Soil Sci. Soc. Am. p. 242.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28: 281–289.Google Scholar
Croster, M. P. and Masiunas, J. B. 1998. The effect of weed-free period and nitrogen on eastern black nightshade competition with English pea. HortScience. 33: 88–91.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Westra, P., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Moore, F. D. III. 1995. The concept and application of early economic period threshold: The case of DCPA in onions (Allium cepa). Weed Sci. 43: 634–639.Google Scholar
Gargouri, T. and Seely, C. I. 1972a. Competition between spring peas and nine densities of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) plants. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
Gargouri, T. and Seely, C. I. 1972b. Time of competition between wild oats (Avena fatua L.) and spring peas. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. pp. 103–104.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40: 441–447.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. 2001. Survey of yield losses due to weeds in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. In press.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Protecting low yields. Proc. Expert Committee on Weeds, Poster Abstract, Dec. 7-9, Winnipeg, Manitoba. pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
Hornford, R. G. and Drew, B. N. 1985. Yield reductions in field peas and lentils resulting from volunteer crop competition. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 38: 122–125.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M. and Topham, P. B. 1985. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: Effects on the weeds. Weed Res. 25: 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupwayi, N. Z., Rice, W. A., and Clayton, G. W. 1998. Soil microbial diversity and community structure under wheat as influenced by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 1733–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, G. A. and Hagedorn, D. J. 1961. Plant population and weed growth relations in canning peas. Weeds. 9: 494–496.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds. 10: 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33: 498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, N.C.B. 1984. Time of onset of competition and effects of various fractions of an Avena fatua L. population on spring barley. Weed Res. 24: 305–315.Google Scholar
Peters, N.C.B. and Wilson, B. J. 1983. Some studies on the competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. II. Variation of A. fatua emergence and development and its influence on crop yield. Weed Res. 23: 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2000. Field Crop Reporting Series. Cat. #22-002, http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/feepub.cgi?subject=920 (Accessed: May 29, 2000). Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C. and van Kessel, C. 1996a. The nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea to succeeding crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76: 735–745.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C. and van Kessel, C. 1996b. A landscape-scale assessment of the nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 1797–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. p. 82.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.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
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24: 317–325.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 145–155.Google Scholar