Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:33:08.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution and interference of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) in spring canola

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nathan T. Froese  and
Rene C. Van Acker
Nathan T. Froese
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In both reduced-tillage and tilled fields, dandelion can be a problem, but the effect of dandelion on canola yield is unknown. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of dandelion infestation on spring canola yield and the influence of tillage on interference and in-field distribution of dandelion. Dandelion distribution was not associated with tillage regimen. Dandelion distribution showed some relationship to past cropping history, for example, the presence of alfalfa in the rotation. The strength of correlation between measures of dandelion infestation level and canola yield loss was associated with tillage regimen. For tilled fields, there was no correlation between reduction in canola yield and any measurements of dandelion infestation level. For reduced-tillage fields, the most reliable measures of dandelion interference level were dandelion ground cover prespray, total dandelion rosette diameter prespray, relative dandelion ground cover prespray, and total dandelion root diameter at crop harvest.

Keywords

Dandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers TAROFArgentine canola, Brassica napus L.alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.Distributioninterferencetillagecompetition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 435 - 442
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

Anonymous. 2001. Manitoba Agriculture and Food, Guide to Crop Protection 2001. Prepared in co-operation with Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 358 p.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. G., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205–209.Google Scholar
Bunce, J. A. 1980. Growth and physiological characteristics of disturbance ecotypes of Taraxacum officinale . Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 61:139.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. The Population Dynamics of Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. pp. 217–242.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:407–409.Google Scholar
Ford, H. 1981. Competitive relationships amongst apomictic dandelions. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 15:355–386.Google Scholar
Froese, N. T. 2001. Dandelion's Distribution, Interference, and Control in Roundup-Ready ™ Canola. . The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 136 p.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–106.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Weed communities associated with arable Saskatchewan farm management systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:177–185.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci. 47:112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. 1995. Losses in grain yield of winter crops from Lolium rigidum competition depend on crop species, cultivar and season. Weed Res. 35:495–502.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Christensen, S., Cloutier, D., et al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 36:85–92.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Kropff, M. J., Wallinga, J., Bos, H. J., and Groeneveld, R.M.W. 1994. Techniques to estimate relative leaf area and cover of weeds in crops for yield loss protection. Weed Res. 34:167–175.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
Lutman, P.J.W., Risiott, R., and Ostermann, H. P. 1996. Investigations into alternative methods to predict the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields. Weed Sci. 44:290–297.Google Scholar
Martin, S. G., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2001. Critical period of weed control in Brassica napus L. (spring canola). Weed Sci. 49:326–333.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Hironaka, R., Kozub, G. C., and Bergen, P. 1990. Effect of herbicide treatments on dandelion, alfalfa and sainfoin yields and quality. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70:1105–1113.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Roman, E. S., Lindwall, C. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Prot. 13 (4): 243–259.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., Leroux, G. D., and Lemieux, C. 1999. A flexible sigmoidal model relating crop yield to weed relative leaf cover and its comparison with nested models. Weed Res. 39:329–343.Google Scholar
Ominski, P. D., Entz, M. H., and Kenkel, N. 1999. Weed suppression by Medicago sativa in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey. Weed Sci. 47:282–290.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. 1985. In praise of the archenemy. Audubon. 87 (4): 36–39.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Silversides, W. H. 1938. A Study of the Eradication and Ecology of the Dandelion. . University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 58 p.Google Scholar
Solbrig, O. T. and Simpson, B. B. 1974. Components of regulation of a population of dandelions in Michigan. J. Ecol. 62:473–486.Google Scholar
Spandl, E., Kells, J. J., and Hesterman, O. B. 1999. Weed invasion in new stands of alfalfa seeded with perennial forage grasses and an oat companion crop. Crop Sci. 39:1120–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, F. C. and Johnston, A. M. 1999. Annual broadleaf crop frequency and residual weed populations in Saskatchewan Parkland. Weed Sci. 47:208–214.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Frick, B. L., Juras, L., Hall, L., Van Acker, R. C., and Joosse, D. 1998. Changes in weed distribution indicated by quantitative surveys in the prairie provinces of Canada over 10 years. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abst. 38:15.9.4.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Prot. 9:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn grown without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453–457.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992. Value of information about weed distribution for improving post emergence control decisions. Crop Prot. 11:547–554.Google Scholar