Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:01:27.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of wild oat (Avena fatua) and sterile oat (Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana) in wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2021

Gulshan Mahajan Open the ORCID record for Gulshan Mahajan [Opens in a new window]  and
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Gulshan Mahajan*
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia; Principal Agronomist, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Affiliation:
Professor, Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) and School of Agriculture and Food Sciences (SAFS), University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Gulshan Mahajan, Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD4343, Australia. (Email: g.mahajan@uq.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prevalence of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) and sterile oat [Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana (Durieu) Gillet & Magne; referred to as A. sterilis hereafter], winter-season weeds, is increasing in the eastern grain region of Australia. Biological attributes of these weeds enable them to survive in a wide range of environments and under different weed infestation levels. The interference of A. fatua and A. sterilis in a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop was examined in southeast Queensland, Australia, through field studies in 2019 and 2020. Different infestation levels (0, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 plants m−2) of A. fatua and A. sterilis were evaluated for their potential to cause yield losses in wheat. Based on a three-parameter logarithmic model, the A. fatua and A. sterilis infestation levels corresponding to 50% wheat yield loss were 15 and 16 plants m−2, respectively. The yield reduction was due to a reduced spike number per unit area because of an increased weed infestation level. At the highest weed infestation level (48 plants m−2), A. fatua and A. sterilis produced a maximum of 4,800 and 3,970 seeds m−2, respectively. Avena fatua exhibited lower seed retention (17% to 39%) than A. sterilis (64% to 80%) at wheat harvest, as most of the seeds of A. fatua had shattered at crop maturity. Our results implied that there is a good opportunity for harvest weed seed control if the paddock is infested with A. sterilis. This study suggests that in the absence of an integrated weed management strategy (using both chemical and nonchemical options), a high infestation of these weeds could cause a severe crop yield loss, increase weed seed production, and replenish the weed seedbank in the soil.

Keywords

Biologyseed productionseed retentionweed competitionweed densitywheat yield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , July 2021 , pp. 485 - 491
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Sharon Clay, South Dakota State University

References

Anderson, RL (2003) An ecological approach to strengthen weed management in the semiarid Great Plains. Adv Agron 80:33–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balyan, RS, Malik, RK, Panwar, RS, Singh, S (1991) Competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars with wild oat (Avena ludoviciana). Weed Sci 39:154–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ (2006) Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol 20:793–814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Warwick, SI, Sauder, CA (2012) Basis for herbicide resistance in Canadian populations of wild oat (Avena fatua).Weed Sci 60:10–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Harker, KN, O’Donovan, JT, Beckie, HJ, Smith, EG (2008) Ongoing development of integrated weed management systems on the Canadian prairies. Weed Sci 56:146–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, DA (1953) Wild oats progress in cultural control. Weeds 2:295–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, HL, Hill, JE (1985) Wild oats competition with spring wheat: plant density effects. Weed Sci 33:176–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R (2002) Significance of Mixed Infestations of Wild Oat Species for Integrated Management, GRDC Research Summary. Grains Research and Development Corporation. https://grdc.com.au/research/reports/report?id=5633. Accessed: November 13, 2020Google Scholar
Daugovish, O, Thill, DC, Shafii, B (2002) Competition between wild oat (Avena fatua) and yellow mustard (Sinapis alba) or canola (Brassica napus). Weed Sci 50:587–594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dew, DA, Keyes, CH (1976) An index of competition for estimating loss of rape due to wild oats. Can J Plant Sci 56:1005–1006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Quintanilla, C, Gonzalez Andujar, JL, Appleby, AP (1990) Characterization of the germination and emergence response to temperature and soil moisture of Avena fatua and A. sterilis . Weed Res 30:289–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, KN, O’Donovan, JT, Irvine, RB, Turkington, TK, Clayton, GW (2009) Integrating cropping systems with cultural techniques augments wild oat (Avena fatua) management in barley. Weed Sci 57:326–337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, KN, O’Donovan, JT, Turkington, TK, Blackshaw, RE, Lupwayi, NZ, Smith, EG, Johnson, EN, Pageau, D, Shirtliffe, SJ, Gulden, RH, Rowsell, J, Hall, LM, Willenborg, CJ (2016) Diverse rotations and optimal cultural practices control wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 64:170–180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Pancho, JV, Herbeger, JP (1977) World’s Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p Google Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK, Mauromoustakos, A (2019) Effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) establishment time and distance from the crop row on biological and phenological characteristics of the weed: implications on soybean yield. Weed Sci 67:126–135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, D, Luckett, DJ, Lockley, P, Koetz, E, Wu, H (2014) Competitive ability of Australian canola (Brassica napus) genotypes for weed management. Crop Pasture Sci 65:1300–1310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, R, Ronning, D, Clarke, M, Mayfield, A, Walker, S, Ouzman, J (2016) Impact of Weeds in Australian Grain Production: The Cost of Weeds to Australian Grain Growers and the Adoption of Weed Management and Tillage Practices. CSIRO, Australia. https://grdc.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/75843/grdc_weeds_review_r8.pdf.pdf. Accessed: December 9, 2020Google Scholar
Mahajan, G, Chauhan, BS (2021a) Biological traits of six sterile oat biotypes in response to planting time. Agron J 113:42–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, G, Chauhan, BS (2021b) Seed longevity and seedling emergence behaviour of wild oat (Avena fatua) and sterile oat (Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana) in response to burial depth in eastern Australia. Weed Sci, 10.1017/wsc.2021.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, G, Walsh, M, Chauhan, BS (2020) Junglerice (Echinochloa colona) and feather fingergrass (Chloris virgata) seed production and retention at sorghum maturity. Weed Technol 34:272–276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, RJ, Cullis, BR, McNamara, DW (1987) Prediction of wheat yield loss due to competition by wild oats (Avena spp.). Aus J Agric Res 38:487–499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nugent, T, Storrie, A, Medd, R (1999) Managing Wild Oats. CRC for Weed Management Systems and Grains Research and Development Corporation. https://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/495346/archive-wild_oats.pdf. Accessed: November 13, 2020Google Scholar
Reiss, A, Fomsgaard, IS, Mathiassen, SK, Kudsk, P (2018) Weed suppressive traits of winter cereals: allelopathy and competition. Biochem Syst Ecol 76:35–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahil, Mahajan G, Loura, D, Raymont, K, Chauhan, BS (2020) Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana . PLoS ONE 15:e0234648 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Steckel, LE, Walsh, MJ (2016) Tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seed production and retention at soybean maturity. Weed Technol 30:284–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, MP, Vanden Born, WH (1983) Crop competition aids efficacy of wild oat herbicides. Can J Plant Sci 63:503–507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Robinson, DE, Sprague, CL, Morishita, DW, Lawrence, NC, Kniss, AR, Jha, P, Felix, J, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2018) Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada. Weed Technol 32:749–753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storrie, A (2007) Wild Oat Resistance Options, Grains Research Update—Northern Region. Grains Research and Development Corporation. http://users.tpg.com.au/icanadsl/newsletters/NL37V4.pdf. Accessed: November 13, 2020Google Scholar
Storrie, A (2019) Managing Wild Oats—Fact Sheet. Grains Research and Development Corporation. https://grdc.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0036/384966/GRDC_ManWildOats_V05.pdf?utm_source=website&utm_medium=download_button&utm_campaign=pdf_download&utm_term=National&utm_content=Managing%20Wild%20Oats. Accessed: November 13, 2020Google Scholar
Torner, C, Gonzalez-Andujar, JL, Fernandez-Quintanilla, C (1991) Wild oat (Avena sterilis) competition with winter barley: plant density effects. Weed Res 31:301–307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walia, US, Brar, LS (2001) Competitive ability of wild oats (Avena ludoviciana Dur.) and broad leaf weeds with wheat in relation to crop density and nitrogen levels. Indian J Weed Sci 33:120–123 Google Scholar
Walia, US, Seema, J, Brar, LS, Singh, M (2001) Competitive ability of wheat with variable population of wild oats (Avena ludoviciana Dur.) Indian J Weed Sci 33:171–173 Google Scholar
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431–436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Broster, JC, Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Davis, AS, Tidemann, BD, Beckie, HJ, Lyon, DJ, Soni, N, Neve, P, Bagavathiannan, MV (2018) Opportunities and challenges for harvest weed seed control in global cropping systems. Pest Manag Sci 74:2235–2245 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, MJ, Harrington, RB, Powles, SB (2012) Harrington Seed Destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci 52:1343–1347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2014) High seed retention at maturity of annual weeds infesting crop fields highlights the potential for harvest weed seed control. Weed Technol 28:486–493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mahajan and Chauhan supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Mahajan and Chauhan supplementary material(File)
File 24.2 KB