Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:00:44.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Oat (Avena sativa) Interseeding on Weed Suppression in the Final Year of an Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Stand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. Thomas Lanini ,
Steve B. Orloff ,
Warren E. Bendixen ,
W. Michael Canevari ,
Jerry L. Schmierer  and
Ronald N. Vargas
W. Thomas Lanini*
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Steve B. Orloff
Affiliation:
University of California, 1655 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097
Warren E. Bendixen
Affiliation:
University of California, 624 West Foster Road, Suite A, Santa Maria, CA 93455
W. Michael Canevari
Affiliation:
University of California, 420 South Wilson Way, Stockton, CA 95205
Jerry L. Schmierer
Affiliation:
University of California, 707 Nevada Street, Susanville, CA 96130
Ronald N. Vargas
Affiliation:
University of California, 328 Madera Avenue, Madera, CA 93637
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wtlanini@ucdavis.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paraquat, cultivation, or cultivation plus oat interseeding (56 or 84 kg/ha) into established alfalfa were evaluated for their effect on weeds, forage yield, and forage composition at Santa Ynez, Lancaster, and Stockton, CA. Treatments were applied during the winter to dormant alfalfa and evaluated in the subsequent harvest season. Paraquat reduced first harvest total forage yields 20 to 33% compared to untreated alfalfa, whereas oat interseeding increased total forage yields 16 to 36%. Cultivation reduced total forage yield in the first cutting by 26% at Lancaster but did not affect forage yield at the other sites. Total or component forage yields were not affected by any treatment in the second and subsequent harvests, with the exception of weeds. Paraquat reduced weed biomass in the first harvest by 45 and 49% at Lancaster and Stockton. Oat interseeding reduced first harvest weed biomass by 80% at Lancaster but did not affect weed biomass at Stockton or Santa Ynez. Oat interseeding or paraquat treatment reduced weed biomass in the second harvest at Stockton, but did not affect weeds in any other harvest at any of the sites. Oat interseeding was comparable to paraquat treatment for weed control, with the advantage of also increasing first harvest forage yield.

Keywords

Paraquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionalfalfa, Medicago sativa L. ‘Lahontan,’ ‘WL318’oat, Avena sativa L. ‘Montezuma.’Cultivationparaquat
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 399 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Becker, R. L., Sheaffer, C. C., Miller, D. W., and Swanson, D. R. 1998. Forage quality and economic implications of systems to manage giant foxtail and oat during alfalfa establishment. J. Prod. Agric. 11:300–308.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Bendixen, W. E. 1990. Interplanting oats into the last year of an alfalfa stand. The 1990 Res. Prog. Rep., West. Soc. Weed Sci. 42: 217–218.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T., Orloff, S. B., Vargas, R. N., Orr, J. P., Marble, V. L., and Grattan, S. R. 1991. Oat companion crop seeding rate effect on alfalfa establishment, yield and weed control. Agron. J. 83:330–333.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W., Agamalian, H. S., Bell, C. E., et al. 1997. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa. University of California Statewide IPM program. 33 p.Google Scholar
Orloff, S. B. and Putnam, D. H. 1995. Management and replacement of depleted stands. In Orloff, S. B. and Carlson, H. L., eds. Intermountain Alfalfa Management. Oakland, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publ. 3366. pp. 133–138.Google Scholar
Simmons, S. R., Sheaffer, C. C., Rasmusson, D. C., Stuthman, D. D., and Nickel, S. E. 1995. Alfalfa establishment with barley and oat companion crops differing in stature. Agron. J. 87:268–272.Google Scholar
Spandl, E., Kells, J. J., and Hesterman, O. B. 1997. Weed invasion in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa) seeded with perennial forage grasses. Weed Technol. 11:556–560.Google Scholar
Suzuki, M. 1991. Effects of stand age on agronomic, morphological and chemical characteristics of alfalfa. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:445–452.Google Scholar
Undersander, D., Martin, N., Cosgrove, D., Kelling, K., Schmitt, M., Wedberg, J., Becker, R., Grau, C., and Doll, J. 1991. Alfalfa management guide. University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension and Minnesota Extension Service. Cooperative Extension Publications, University of Wisconsin-Extension. 41 p.Google Scholar
Welty, L. E., Ditterline, R. L., Hall, J. A., and Prestbye, L. S. 1988. Effect of tillage for renovation of established alfalfa. Appl. Agric. Res. 3:123–127.Google Scholar