Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-jtv8x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-07T12:24:09.085Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Rotation length, canola variety and herbicide resistance system affect weed populations and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Keith Topinka
University of Alberta, Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, 410 Ag/Forestry Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2P5, Canada
Prem Kharbanda
Alberta Research Council, P.O. Bag 4000, Vegreville, AB T9C 1T4, Canada
Ralph Lange
Alberta Research Council, P.O. Bag 4000, Vegreville, AB T9C 1T4, Canada
Rong-Cai Yang
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Policy Secretariat, J. G. O'Donoghue Building, No. 300, 7000-113 Street, Edmonton, AB T6H 5T6, Canada
Linda M. Hall
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Alberta, Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, 410 Ag/Forestry Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2P5, Canada


A 4-year study was initiated in 1997 to provide canola producers with information on the consequences of various rotational intervals with the use of new disease and herbicide-resistant canola varieties. The study was conducted at three locations in Alberta, Canada (Ellerslie, Strathmore, and Warburg). At each location, four canola rotations were established: continuous canola, and canola seeded in 1 of 2, 3, or 4 years. Canola varieties included the conventional varieties ‘AC Excel’ and ‘Quantum’, the glyphosate-resistant variety ‘Quest’, imidazolinone-resistant ‘45A71’, and a glufosinate-resistant hybrid, ‘Invigor 2153’. In the fourth year of the study, when canola was grown in all treatments, weed densities, weed species diversity, and evenness were determined preseeding and before and after in-crop herbicide application. Canola yield was greatest in the northern ecoregions of the Boreal Transition (Warburg) and Aspen Parkland (Ellerslie), and lowest in the Moist Mixed Grassland ecoregion (Strathmore). Weed populations increased and population diversity decreased and became less even where rotations were less diverse; in continuous canola and in the 1-in-4–year rotation. As expected, weed densities increased in poorly competitive, conventional canola varieties compared to herbicide-resistant varieties sprayed with their broader-spectrum herbicides. Where weed densities were high, variety/herbicide system became a critical factor affecting crop yield. Under these conditions, the herbicide-resistant varieties ‘Quest’ and ‘Invigor 2153’ typically outyielded the conventional varieties of ‘AC Excel’ and ‘Quantum’. Canola yield was highest when grown in a 1-in-3– or a 1-in-4–year rotation, although the 1-in-3–year rotation generally had lower weed densities, and allowed high-value canola to be grown more frequently in rotation.

Research Article
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., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol 12:531536.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol 8:231237.Google Scholar
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. 2005. GM crops: the global economic and environmental impact–the first nine years 1996–2004. Agbioforum 8(2–3).Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1999. Weed population responses to weed control practices. I. Seed bank, weed populations, and crop yields. Weed Sci 47:416422.Google Scholar
Campbell, C. A., Zentner, R. P., Janzen, H. H., and Bowren, K. E. 1990. Crop rotation studies on the Canadian prairies. Agriculture Canada Publication 1841/E.Google Scholar
Canola Council of Canada. 2004. Canola Facts: Why Growers Choose GM Canola. Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci 50:448460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colbach, N. and Debaeke, P. 1998. Integrating crop management and crop rotation effects into models of weed population dynamics: a review. Weed Sci 46:717728.Google Scholar
Dorado, J., Del Monte, J. P., and López-Fando, C. 1999. Weed seedbank response to crop rotation and tillage in semiarid agroecosystems. Weed Sci 47:6773.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci 47:729735.Google Scholar
Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A National Ecologic Framework for Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada. 125 pp.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G., Rothery, P., May, M. J., Clark, S. J., Scott, R. J., Stuart, R. C., Boffey, C. W. H., Brooks, D. R., Champion, G. T., Haughton, A. J., Hawes, C., Heard, M. S., Dewar, A. M., Perry, J. N., and Squire, G. R. 2006. Effects of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant cropping systems on weed seedbanks in two years of following crops. Biol. Lett 2:140143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. 680 pp.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., Kirkland, K. J., Derksen, D. A., and Wall, D. 2000. Herbicide-tolerant canola: weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:647654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Lupwayi, N. Z., Johnson, E. N., Gan, Y., Zentner, R. P., Lafond, G. P., and Irvine, R. B. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant spring wheat production system effects on weed communities. Weed Sci 53:451464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, M. and Crump, S. 1999. The scoop on canola rotations. The Alberta Canola Grower. Alberta Canola Producers Commission, March/April issue.Google Scholar
Hawes, C., Haughton, A. J., Osborne, J. L., Roy, D. B., Clark, S. J., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Bohan, D. A., Brooks, D. R., Champion, G. T., Dewar, A. M., Heard, M. S., Woiwood, I. P., Daniels, R. E., Young, M. W., Parish, A. M., Scott, R. J., Firbank, L. G., and Squire, G. R. 2003. Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the farm scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 358:18991913.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnston, A. M., Kutcher, H. R., and Bailey, K. L. 2005. Impact of crop sequence decisions in the Saskatchewan Parkland. Can. J. Plant Sci 85:95102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kharbanda, P. D. 1992. Blackleg of canola in Alberta: investigations on biology, epidemiology and management. Vegreville, AB, Canada: Alberta Environmental Centre AEC93-5.Google Scholar
Kharbanda, P. D., Evans, I. R., Harrison, L., Slopek, S., Huang, H. C., Kaminski, D., and Tewari, J. P. 1989. Blackleg of canola survey in Alberta—1998. Can. Plant Dis. Survey 69:5557.Google Scholar
Krupinsky, J. M., Bailey, K. L., McMullen, M. P., Gossen, B. D., and Turkington, T. K. 2002. Managing plant disease risk in diversified cropping systems. Agron. J 94:198209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Hall, L. M. 2002. Alberta weed survey of cereal, oilseed and pulse crops in 2001. Weed Survey Series Publication Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, 02-1. 263 pp.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Ohno, T. 1998. Crop rotation and legume residue effects on weed emergence and growth: applications for weed management. Pages 181221 in Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A. eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Anne Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A., Reddy, K. N., and Zablotowicz, R. M. 2002. Weed management in conservation crop production systems. Weed Biol. Manage 2:123132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 179 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed management and crop rotations influence populations of several broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci 49:106122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Effect of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil. Weed Res 42:7687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieling, K., Christen, O., Nemati, B., and Hanus, H. 1997. Effects of previous cropping on seed yield and yield components of oil-seed rape (Brassica napus L). Eur. J. Agron 6:215223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 pp.Google Scholar
Streit, B., Rieger, S. B., Stamp, P., and Richner, W. 2003. Weed populations in winter wheat as affected by crop sequence, intensity of tillage and time of herbicide application in a cool and humid climate. Weed Res 43:2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J., and Hall, L. 1999. Farm management practices in Alberta. Results of the 1997 Alberta Weed Survey. Weed Survey Series, Publication 99–2. Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. 1995. Canola Growers Manual. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Canola Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Ogg, A. G. Jr., Thill, D. C., Young, D. L., and Papendick, R. I. 1996. Weed management for crop production in the Northwest wheat (Triticum aestivum) region. Weed Sci 44:429436.Google Scholar