Hostname: page-component-758b78586c-wkjwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-29T05:12:50.768Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Environmental Effects on the Relative Competitive Ability of Canola and Small-Grain Cereals in a Direct-Seeded System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Neil Harker*
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1 Canada
John T. O'Donovan
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1 Canada
Robert E. Blackshaw
Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada
Eric N. Johnson
Scott Experimental Farm, Scott, SK S0K 4A0, Canada
Frederick A. Holm
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
George W. Clayton
Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada
Corresponding author's E-mail:


Growing crops that exhibit a high level of competition with weeds increases opportunities to practice integrated weed management and reduce herbicide inputs. The recent development and market dominance of hybrid canola cultivars provides an opportunity to reassess the relative competitive ability of canola cultivars with small-grain cereals. Direct-seeded (no-till) experiments were conducted at five western Canada locations from 2006 to 2008 to compare the competitive ability of canola cultivars vs. small-grain cereals. The relative competitive ability of the species and cultivars was determined by assessing monocot and dicot weed biomass at different times throughout the growing season as well as oat (simulated weed) seed production. Under most conditions, but especially under warm and relatively dry environments, barley cultivars had the greatest relative competitive ability. Rye and triticale were also highly competitive species under most environmental conditions. Canada Prairie Spring Red wheat and Canada Western Red Spring wheat cultivars usually were the least competitive cereal crops, but there were exceptions in some environments. Canola hybrids were more competitive than open-pollinated canola cultivars. More importantly, under cool, low growing degree day conditions, canola hybrids were as competitive as barley, especially with dicot weeds. Under most conditions, hybrid canola growers on the Canadian Prairies are well advised to avoid the additional selection pressure inherent with a second in-crop herbicide application. Combining competitive cultivars of any species with optimal agronomic practices that facilitate crop health will enhance cropping system sustainability and allow growers to extend the life of their valuable herbicide tools.

Weed Management
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.)


Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agron. J. 97:15791583.Google Scholar
Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:124.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:351371.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol. 20:793814.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2007. Beneficial management practices to combat herbicide-resistant grass weeds in the Northern Great Plains. Weed Technol. 21:290299.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Johnson, E. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Gan, Y. 2008. Weed suppression by canola and mustard cultivars. Weed Technol. 22:182185.Google Scholar
Beres, B. L., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Bremer, E., Blackshaw, R. E., and Graf, R. J. 2010. Weed competitive ability of spring and winter cereals in the Northern Great Plains. Weed Technol. 24:108116.Google Scholar
Berkenkamp, B. and Meeres, J. 1987. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:175183.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Beckie, H. J., and Smith, E. G. 2008. Ongoing development of integrated weed management systems on the Canadian Prairies. Weed Sci. 56:146150.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Stobbe, E. H., and Sturko, A. R. W. 1981. Effect of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and production of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 29:212217.Google Scholar
[CCC] Canola Council of Canada. 2010a. Provincial acreages and yields. Accessed: May 14, 2010.Google Scholar
[CCC] Canola Council of Canada. 2010b. Temperature, frost and hail. in Canola Growers Manual. Accessed: June 18, 2010.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1995. Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Res. 35:241247.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Binning, L. K., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2002. Estimating giant foxtail cohort productivity in soybean based on weed density, leaf area, or volume. Weed Sci. 50:7278.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921927.Google Scholar
Ehler, L. E. 2006. Integrated pest management (IPM): definition, historical development and implementation, and the other IPM. Pest Manag. Sci. 62:787789.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1978. Susceptibility to shade in seedlings of colonizing and closed turf species. New Phytol. 81:739744.Google Scholar
Francis, T. R. and Kannenberg, L. W. 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. I. A descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:10281034.Google Scholar
Górski, T. 1975. Germination of seeds in the shadow of plants. Physiol. Plant. 34:342346.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. 2001. Survey of yield losses due to weeds in central Alberta. Can J. Plant Sci. 81:339342.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:433440.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Irvine, R. B., Turkington, T. K., and Clayton, G. W. 2009. Integrating cropping systems with cultural techniques augments wild oat (Avena fatua) management in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Sci. 57:326337.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Mechanisms of interactions between species. Pages 347381 in Harper, J. L., ed. Population Biology of Plants. London Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Battles, B. A., and Nordby, D. 2004. Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean. Weed Sci. 52:242245.Google Scholar
King, T. J. 1975. Inhibition of seed germination under leaf canopies in Arenaria serpyllifolia, Veronica arvensis and Cerastum (sic) holosteoides . New Phytol. 75:8790.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. 42:417428.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. 1995. Losses in grain yields of winter crops from Lolium rigidum competition depend on crop species, cultivar and season. Weed Res. 35:503509.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Orchard, B. 2001. Ranking the competitive ability of wheat varieties to compete with Lolium rigidum . Weed Res. 41:197209.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 2006. SAS System for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 813 p.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Stroup, W. W., and Freund, R. J. 2002. SAS for Linear Models. 4th ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 466 p.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001a. Weed life history: identifying vulnerabilities. Pages 4098 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001b. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 269321 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nuttall, W. F., Moulin, A. P., and Townley-Smith, L. J. 1992. Yield response of canola to nitrogen, phosphorus, precipitation, and temperature. Agron. J. 84:765768.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and McKenzie, R. 2005. Variable crop plant establishment contributes to differences in competitiveness with wild oat among cereal varieties. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:771776.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Moyer, J. R., Dosdall, L. M., Maurice, D. C., and Turkington, T. K. 2007. Integrated approaches to managing weeds in spring-sown crops in western Canada. Crop Prot. 26:390398.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. 2006. Comparison of a glyphosate-resistant canola (Brassica napus L.) system with traditional herbicide regimes. Weed Technol. 20:494501.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technol. 14:624629.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. C., Weiss, G. M., and Dew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:725731.Google Scholar
Pavlychenko, T. K. and Harrington, J. B. 1934. Competitive efficiency of weeds and cereal crops. Can. J. Res. 10:7794.Google Scholar
Polowick, P. L. and Sawhney, V. K. 1988. High temperature induced male and female sterility in canola (Brassica napus L.). Ann. Bot. 62:8386.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Yu, Q. 2010. Evolution in action: plant resistance to herbicides. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 61:317347.Google Scholar
Qaderi, M. M., Kurepin, L. V., and Reid, D. M. 2006. Growth and physiological responses of canola (Brassica napus) to three components of global climate change: temperature, carbon dioxide and drought. Physiol. Plant. 128:710721.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 User's Guide. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2005. The GLIMMIX Procedure. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 256 p.Google Scholar
Seavers, G. P. and Wright, K. J. 1999. Crop canopy development and structure influence weed suppression. Weed Res. 39:319328.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. 1980. Leaf-canopy-induced seed dormancy in a grassland flora. New Phytol. 85:109118.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657663.Google Scholar
Tobias, R. D. 1995. An introduction to partial least squares analysis. Pages 12501257 in Proceedings of the 20th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, Orlando, FL. 2–5 Apr. 1995. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, B. M., Smith, E. G., Clayton, G. W., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., and Blackshaw, R. E. 2005. Economic evaluation of seeding decisions in hybrid and open-pollinated herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus L.). Can J. Plant Sci. 85:761769.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. 54:783792.Google Scholar
Wold, S. 1994. PLS for multivariate linear modeling. Pages 195218 in van de Waterbeemd, H., ed. QSAR: Chemometric Methods in Molecular Design: Methods and Principles And Principles in Medicinal Chemistry. Weinheim, Germany Verlag-Chemie.Google Scholar
Young, L. W., Wilen, R. W., and Bonham-Smith, P. C. 2004. High temperature stress of Brassica napus during flowering reduces micro- and megagametophyte fertility, induces fruit abortion, and disrupts seed production. J. Exp. Bot. 55:485495.Google Scholar
Zand, E. and Beckie, H. J. 2002. Competitive ability of hybrid and open-pollinated canola (Brassica napus) with wild oat (Avena fatua). Can. J. Plant Sci. 82:473480.Google Scholar