Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:09:45.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Yield Response to Henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) Interference and Simulated Winterkill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shawn P. Conley  and
Kevin W. Bradley
Shawn P. Conley*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47905
Kevin W. Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: conleysp@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No-till production systems coupled with decreased use of soil residual herbicides has led to increased populations of winter annual weeds. Therefore, research was conducted to quantify the effect of henbit interference and crop stand loss on soft red winter wheat grain yield and grain volume weight. The main-plot effect consisted of weed-free versus weedy plots. The subplot effect was winter wheat stand loss treatments of 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100%. Henbit interference did not affect test weight; however, test weight decreased as percentage of stand loss increased. Henbit did not reduce crop yield at 18 plants/m2; however, at 82 and 155 plants/m2, crop yield was reduced 13 and 38%, respectively, when averaged across all stand loss treatments. Yield estimates based on wheat tiller or spike density decreased linearly as crop stand loss increased. Our results indicated that henbit interference coupled with crop stand loss may significantly decrease crop yield and profitability of wheat production systems.

Keywords

Sethoxydimhenbit, Lamium amplexicaule L. # LAMAMwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Ernie’, ‘Roane’Weed competitionyield losswinterkill
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 902 - 906
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

Blackshaw, R. E. 1993. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) density and relative time of emergence affects interference in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 41:551–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Tillage practices, weed seed banks, and weed community dynamics. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:176.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., and Hall, A. E. 1991. Effect of wild oat (Avena fatua) infestations on light interception and growth rate of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 39:175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlke, B. J., Hayden, T. A., Leif, J. W., and Medlin, C. R. 2001. Fall application of imazaquin plus glyphosate (premix) for winter annual weed control in soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:93.Google Scholar
Daugovish, O., Lyon, D. J., and Baltensperger, D. D. 1999. Cropping systems to control winter annual grasses in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Tech. 13:120–126.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 15–76, 135–169, 505–553.Google Scholar
Farahbakhsh, A., Murphy, K. J., and Madden, A. D. 1987. The effect of weed interference on the growth and yield of wheat. Proc. Br. Crop Prof. Conf. 3:955–961.Google Scholar
Hasty, R. F., Sprague, C. L., and Hager, A. G. 2002. Temperature effects on burndown herbicide efficacy. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:106.Google Scholar
Jones, S. M. 2000. Effect of Density and Duration of Waterhemp Interference on Soybean (Glycine max L). M.S. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.Google Scholar
Mertens, S. K. and Jansen, J. H. 2002. Weed seed production, crop planting pattern, and mechanical weeding in wheat. Weed Sci. 50:748–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. E., Kephart, K. D., and Conner, J. E. 1988. Growth staging of wheat, barley, and wild oat. Bozeman, MT:. MSU Cooperative Extension Service and Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Northam, F. E., Stahlman, P. W., and Abd El-Hamid, M. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in winter wheat. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. III:173–175.Google Scholar
Scott, R. C., Peeper, T. F., and Koscelny, J. A. 1995. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield response to winter annual broadleaf weed control. Weed Tech. 9: 954–598.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) interference and economic thresholds in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 38:224–228.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2005. Version 9.1.3. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Vrabel, T. E. 1987. Effect of fall weed control on the yield of winter wheat. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:55–58.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Burnside, O. C., and Felton, W. L. 1994. Weed control in conservation tillage systems. in Unger, P. W., ed. Managing Agricultural Residues. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. Pp. 211–244.Google Scholar