Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T10:24:54.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance and Selectivity of Cereal Species and Cultivars to Postemergence Weed Harrowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jesper Rasmussen ,
Helle H. Nielsen  and
Hanne Gundersen
Jesper Rasmussen*
Affiliation:
The University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Agriculture and Ecology, H⊘jbakkegaard Allé 9, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
Helle H. Nielsen
Affiliation:
The University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Agriculture and Ecology, H⊘jbakkegaard Allé 9, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
Hanne Gundersen
Affiliation:
The University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Agriculture and Ecology, H⊘jbakkegaard Allé 9, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jer@life.ku.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

POST weed harrowing and other cultivation methods to control weeds in early crop growth stages may result in crop damage due to low selectivity between crop and weeds. Crop tolerance to cultivation plays an important role but it has not been clearly defined and analyzed. We introduce a procedure for analyzing crop tolerance on the basis of digital image analysis. Crop tolerance is defined as the ability of the crop to avoid yield loss from cultivation in the absence of weeds, and it has two components: resistance and recovery. Resistance is the ability of the crop to resist soil covering and recovery is the ability to recover from it. Soil covering is the percentage of the crop that has been buried because of cultivation. We analyzed data from six field experiments, four experiments with species of small grains, barley, oat, wheat, and triticale, and two experiments with barley cultivars with different abilities to suppress weeds. The order of species' tolerance to weed harrowing was triticale > wheat > barley > oat and the differences were mainly caused by different abilities to recover from soil covering. At 25% soil covering, grain yield loss in triticale was 0.5%, in wheat 2.5%, in barley 3.7%, and in oat 6.5%. Tolerance, resistance, and recovery, however, were influenced by year, especially for oat and barley. There was no evidence of differences between barley cultivars in terms of tolerance indicating that differences among species are more important than differences among cultivars. Selectivity analysis made it possible to calculate the crop yield loss due to crop damage associated with a certain percentage of weed control. In triticale, 80% weed control was associated with 22% crop soil cover on average, which reduced grain yield 0.4% on average in the absence of weeds. Corresponding values for wheat, barley, and oat were 23, 21, and 20% crop soil cover and 2.3, 3.6, and 5.1% grain yield loss.

Keywords

Barley, Hordeum vulgare L.oat, Avena sativa L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.triticale, x Triticosecale.Mechanical weed controlphysical weed controlcultivationtillage
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 338 - 345
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

Ascard, J. and Mattsson, B. 1994. Inter-row cultivation in weed-free carrots—the effect on yield of hoeing and brush weeding. Biol. Agric. Hort. 10:161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosser, N. D., Gooding, M. J., Thompson, A. J., and Froud-Williams, R. J. 1997. Competitive ability and tolerance of organically grown wheat cultivars to natural weed infestations. Ann. Appl. Biol. 3:523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. H. K. and Welsh, J. P. 2002. Weed control in organic cereals and pulses. Pages 77–114. In Younie, D., Taylor, B. R., Welch, J. M., and Wilkinson, J. M. Organic Cereals and Pulses. Southampton Chalcombe Publications.Google Scholar
Endres, G., Berglund, D., Dexter, A., and Zollinger, R. 1999. Mechanical Weed Control with a Harrow or Rotary Hoe. North Dakota State University, Fargo North Dakota. Available at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/w1134w.htm. Accessed: July 10, 2008.Google Scholar
Fogelberg, F. and Gustavsson, A. M. D. 1999. Mechanical damage to annual weeds and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Res. 29:469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundersen, H., Rasmussen, J., and Nørremark, M. 2006. Tolerance of cereals to post-emergence weed harrowing. Pages 70–78. in. AFPP—Third International Conference on Non-Chemical Crop Protection Methods. Lille, France Association Française de Protection des Plantes.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. K., Kristensen, K., and Willas, J. 2006. Forskellige sorters konkurrenceevne overfor ukrudt (Weed competitiveness of different varieties). Pages 342–343. in. Third Danish Plant Congress. Herning, Denmark Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences and Danish Agricultural Advisory Service.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. K., Rasmussen, I. A., and Andreasen, C. 2007. Tolerance of four spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) varieties to weed harrowing. Weed Res. 47:241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, R. K., Rasmussen, J., and Melander, B. 2004. Selectivity of weed harrowing in lupin. Weed Res. 44:245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. N. and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2007. The tolerance of cereal crops to post-emergence harrowing. Pages 11–14. in. Proceedings 7th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Salem, Germany European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Korres, N. E. and Froud-Williams, R. J. 2002. Effects of winter wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological characteristics of naturally occurring weed flora. Weed Res. 42:417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancashire, P. D., Bleiholder, H., Van Den Boom, T., Langelüddeke, P., Stauss, R., Weber, E., and Witzenberger, A. 1991. A uniform decimal code for the growth stages of crops and weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 119:561–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblanc, M. L. and Cloutier, D. C. 2001a. Susceptibility of row-planted soybean (Glycine max) to the rotary hoe. J. Sustain. Agric. 18 (4):53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblanc, M. L. and Cloutier, D. C. 2001b. Susceptibility of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, cranberry bean) to the rotary hoe. Weed Technol. 15:224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblanc, M. L., Cloutier, D. C., and Stewart, K. A. 2006. Rotary hoe cultivation in sweet corn. Horttechnology. 16:583–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, D., Gill, G. S., Murphy, C. E., Walker, S. R., Cousens, R. D., Mokhtari, S., Peltzer, S. J., Coleman, R., and Luckett, D. J. 2001. Genetic improvement and agronomy for enhanced wheat competitiveness with weeds. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52:527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, H., Navabi, A., Frick, B., O'Donovan, J., and Spaner, D. 2007. Cultivar and seeding rate effects on the competitive ability of spring cereals grown under organic production in northern Canada. Agron. J. 99:1199–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B. 1997. Optimization of the adjustment of a vertical axis rotary brush weeder for intra-row weed control in row crops. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L., Frisch, J. C., and Pleasant, J. M. 1997. Evaluation of mechanical weed management programs for corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouazen, A. M., Duerinckx, K., Ramon, H., and Anthonis, J. 2007. Soil influences on the mechanical actions of a flexible spring tine during selective weed harrowing. Biosyst. Eng. 96:7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J., Kristensen, L., and Weiner, J. 2006. Influence of sowing density and spatial pattern of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) on the suppression of different weed species. Weed Biol. Manag. 6 (3):165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, I. A. 2004. The effect of sowing date, stale seedbed, row width and mechanical weed control on weeds and yields of organic winter wheat. Weed Res. 44:12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 1991. A model for prediction of yield response in weed harrowing. Weed Res. 31:401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 1993. The influence of harrowing used for post-emergence weed control on the interference between crop and weeds. Pages 209–217. in. Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium 1993. Quantitative Approaches in Weed and Herbicide Research and Their Practical Application. Braunschweig, Germany European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J., Bibby, B. M., and Schou, A. P. 2008. Investigating the selectivity of weed harrowing with new methods. Weed Res. 48:523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J., Kurtzmann, J. I., and Jensen, A. 2004. Tolerance of competitive spring barley cultivars to weed harrowing. Weed Res. 44:446–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J., Nørremark, M., and Bibby, B. M. 2007. Assessment of leaf cover and crop soil cover in weed harrowing research using digital images. Weed Res. 47:299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydberg, T. 1994. Weed harrowing—the influence of driving speed and driving direction on degree of soil covering and the growth of weed and crop plants. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 10:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhala, P., Kurstjens, D. A. G., Ascard, J., Bertram, B., Cloutier, D. C., Mead, A., Raffaelli, M., and Rasmussen, J. 2004. Guidelines for physical weed control research: flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation. Pages 208–239. in. Prodeedings 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Lillehammer, Norway European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Watson, P. R., Derksen, D. A., and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. The ability of 29 barley cultivars to compete and withstand competition. Weed Sci. 54:783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar