Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:07:26.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wild Oat (Avena fatua) and Spring Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Density Affect Spring Barley Grain Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Richard M. Evans
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Lawrence Tapia
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Bahman Shafii
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Joan M. Lish
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843

Abstract

Addition series field experiments were conducted near Moscow, ID, in 1987 and 1988 to determine the relative aggressiveness of spring barley and wild oat and to determine the effect of barley and wild oat density and proportion on barley grain yield and wild oat seed rain. Regression analysis was used to describe the relationship of the aboveground biomass and grain yield to species density. Barley was more aggressive than wild oat. Barley biomass was affected most by intraspecific competition, while wild oat biomass was affected most by interspecific competition. Barley aggressiveness changed little throughout the growing season. Wild oat aggressiveness varied but was always less than barley aggressiveness. Increasing wild oat density had a negative, asymptotic-type effect on barley grain yield at all barley densities. However, the effect of wild oat was greatest at the lower density of barley. Increasing barley density decreased wild oat seed rain.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the 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

1. Allard, R. 1965. Genetic systems associated with colonizing ability in predominately self-pollinated species. p. 49 in Baker, H. and Stebbins, G., eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
2. Barbour, M. G., Burk, J. H., and Pitts, W. D. 1980. Competition and amensalism. p. 82 in Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R. W., Carpenter, D., Dawson, J. H., Friesen, H. A., Glinz, A.E., Hehn, R., Hemstead, K., Klassen, W., Nalewaja, J. D., Seely, C. I., Shaw, W. C., and Wax, L. M. 1976. Wild oat: A situation report. North Dakota State Exp. Stn. North Dakota State Univ. Google Scholar
4. Bell, A. R., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1968. Competition of wild oat in wheat and barley. Weed Sci. 16:505508.Google Scholar
5. Carlson, H. L., and Hill, J. E. 1985. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: Plant density effects. Weed Sci. 33:176181.Google Scholar
6. Chancellor, R. J., and Peters, N.C.B. 1972. Germination periodicity, plant survival and seed production in populations of Avena fatua growing in spring barley. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 1:218225.Google Scholar
7. Chancellor, R. J., and Peters, N.C.B. 1976. Competition between wild oats and crops. p. 99112 in Jones, D. P., ed. Wild Oats in World Agriculture. Agric. Res. Coun. London.Google Scholar
8. Colman-Harrell, M. E. 1978. Influence of densities and exposure durations of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) populations on the yields of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho. Google Scholar
9. Cooperative Ext. Service. 1977. Idaho Fertilizer Guide: Malting Barley. Univ. Idaho Coll. Agric. CIS 270.Google Scholar
10. Cooperative Ext. Service. 1978. Producing Malting Barley in Idaho. Univ. Idaho Coll. Agric. CIS 276.Google Scholar
11. Fischer, R. A., and Miles, R. E. 1973. The role of spatial pattern in the competition between crop plants and weeds. A theoretical analysis. Math. Biosci. 18:335350.Google Scholar
12. Gournay, X. de. 1964. Data pertaining to wild oat control in spring barley. Ann. Epiphyt. 15:285320.Google Scholar
13. Haizel, K. A., and Harper, J. L. 1973. The effects of density and the timing of removal on interference between barley, white mustard and wild oats. J. Appl. Ecol. 10:2332.Google Scholar
14. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Avena fatua L. and other members of the “wild oats” group. p. 105 in The World's Worst Weeds Distribution and Biology. East-West Center, Univ. Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
15. Idaho Agricultural Statistics. 1988. Idaho Dep. Agric., 2270 Old Penitentiary Rd., Boise, ID 83701.Google Scholar
16. Lee, G. A., Thill, D. C., and Schumacher, W. J. 1981. Wild oat cultural control. Univ. Idaho, Coll. of Agric. Bull 584.Google Scholar
17. Little, T. M., and Hill, F. J. 1978. The analysis of variance and t tests. p. 3145 in Agricultural Experimentation. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
18. Morishita, D. W., and Thill, D. C. 1988. Factors of wild oat (Avena fatua) interference on spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 36:3742.Google Scholar
19. Morishita, D. W., and Thill, D. C. 1988. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) growth and development in monoculture and mixed culture. Weed Sci. 36:4348.Google Scholar
20. Morishita, D. W., Thill, D. C., and Hammel, J. E. 1989. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) growth in replacement series experiments. Weed Sci. (In press).Google Scholar
21. O'Donovan, J. T., Ann de St. Remy, E., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498503.Google Scholar
22. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190198.Google Scholar
23. Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22: 895905.Google Scholar
24. Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Petersen, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37: 268275.Google Scholar
25. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT™ Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. Cary, NC:SAS Institute Inc., 1985.Google Scholar
26. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:111.Google Scholar