Field Pea and Lentil Tolerance to Interrow Cultivation

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Stanley ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe ◽  
Dilshan Benaragama ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S. N. Duddu
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Row Crops ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractInterrow cultivation is a selective, in-crop mechanical weed control tool that has the potential to control weeds later in the growing season with less crop damage compared with other in-crop mechanical weed control tools. To our knowledge, no previous research has been conducted on the tolerance of narrow-row crops to interrow cultivation. The objective of this experiment was to determine the tolerance of field pea and lentil to interrow cultivation. Replicated field experiments were conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2014 and 2015. Weekly cultivation treatments began at the 4-node stage of each crop, continuing for 6 wk. Field pea and lentil yield linearly declined with later crop stages of cultivation. Cultivating multiple times throughout the growing season reduced yield by 15% to 30% in both crops. Minimal yield loss occurred when interrow cultivation was conducted once at early growth stages of field pea and lentil; however, yield loss increased with delayed and more frequent cultivation events.

Tolerance and Selectivity of Cereal Species and Cultivars to Postemergence Weed Harrowing

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Rasmussen ◽  
Helle H. Nielsen ◽  
Hanne Gundersen
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Soil Cover ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Barley Cultivars ◽  
Cereal Species

POST weed harrowing and other cultivation methods to control weeds in early crop growth stages may result in crop damage due to low selectivity between crop and weeds. Crop tolerance to cultivation plays an important role but it has not been clearly defined and analyzed. We introduce a procedure for analyzing crop tolerance on the basis of digital image analysis. Crop tolerance is defined as the ability of the crop to avoid yield loss from cultivation in the absence of weeds, and it has two components: resistance and recovery. Resistance is the ability of the crop to resist soil covering and recovery is the ability to recover from it. Soil covering is the percentage of the crop that has been buried because of cultivation. We analyzed data from six field experiments, four experiments with species of small grains, barley, oat, wheat, and triticale, and two experiments with barley cultivars with different abilities to suppress weeds. The order of species' tolerance to weed harrowing was triticale > wheat > barley > oat and the differences were mainly caused by different abilities to recover from soil covering. At 25% soil covering, grain yield loss in triticale was 0.5%, in wheat 2.5%, in barley 3.7%, and in oat 6.5%. Tolerance, resistance, and recovery, however, were influenced by year, especially for oat and barley. There was no evidence of differences between barley cultivars in terms of tolerance indicating that differences among species are more important than differences among cultivars. Selectivity analysis made it possible to calculate the crop yield loss due to crop damage associated with a certain percentage of weed control. In triticale, 80% weed control was associated with 22% crop soil cover on average, which reduced grain yield 0.4% on average in the absence of weeds. Corresponding values for wheat, barley, and oat were 23, 21, and 20% crop soil cover and 2.3, 3.6, and 5.1% grain yield loss.

scholarly journals Three mechanical weed control techniques in spring cereals

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. LÖTJÖNEN ◽  
H. J. MIKKOLA
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Control Techniques ◽  
Mechanical Methods ◽  
Spring Cereals ◽  
Silty Clay Soil ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

An inter-row hoe suitable for cereals was developed for the study, and field experiments were conducted to compare inter-row hoeing with weed harrowing, rotary hoeing and chemical control. The treatments were performed once during the growing season. Inter-row hoeing was studied at row spacings of 180 mm and 250 mm. The weeding effect of the different methods was measured by weighing the weeds remaining just before harvesting. Inter-row hoeing was the most effective of the mechanical methods. Weed harrowing was as good as hoeing in silty clay soil but less effective in mull soil. Rotary hoeing was the least effective. Herbicide spraying was more effective than the mechanical methods in both soils. Increasing the spacing between rows from the standard 125 mm to 250 mm decreased the yield of barley by 12-13%. Inter-row hoeing affected the yield very slightly. The yield decreasing was lower at a row spacing of 180 mm than at 250 mm. Weed harrowing and rotary hoeing decreased the yield 5-10%. Although inter-row hoeing seems to be a fairly effective method for weed control, it may be difficult to compensate for the yield loss due to the increase in row spacing.;

scholarly journals Results of the weed control in onion (Allium Cepa L.) field

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
O. Ariunaa ◽  
T. Erdenenzorig ◽  
B. Dondov
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Seed Production ◽  
Experimental Research ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Domestic Production ◽  
Allium Cepa L ◽  
Production Demand

Our country has provided about 52% of vegetables from domestic production, the rest part imported others from outside. Thus, imports of potatoes and vegetables have been reduced last year, for this reason, main vegetable seeds, were produced domestically and provided over 80 percent of the country’s demand. In the future domestic production demand of vegetable goal set working to provide by 100 percent from government our country in this connection issues urgent need to solve sowing seeds, variety supply, seed production, and plant protection. According to our research, during the growing season, 150-350 weeds growing per 1m2 of rounded onions shows that the amount of crop damage is relatively high. For the purpose of control against weeds in the onion field with 3 repetitions of 7 variants of 2 types of herbicides are conducted experimental research. These include; pre-emergent Estamp (Stomp) herbicide applied in doses 2.5; 3.5 l/ha that controls all types of weeds, but showed results of 65.2-72.4%. The growing season during a selective post-emergent of Gaur herbicide in doses 0.7; 0.9l/ ha used against broadleaf and grassy weeds that became clear of weed species density reduced by 92.7-93.4%. It was tested in this study Pendimethalin, 33% + Oxyfluorfen 24 % mixture herbicides have reduced the number of weeds by 92.4-94.1%.

Influence of a Rye Cover Crop on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Cotton

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 346-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas E. Korres ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Presence And Absence ◽  
Weed Removal

Cover crops are becoming increasingly common in cotton as a result of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth; hence, a field experiment was conducted in 2009 and 2010 in Marianna, AR, with a rye cover crop used to determine its effects on the critical period for weed control in cotton. Throughout most of the growing season, weed biomass in the presence of a rye cover crop was lesser than that in the absence of a rye cover crop. In 2009, in weeks 2 through 7 after planting, weed biomass was reduced at least twofold in the presence of a rye cover compared with the absence of rye. In 2009, in both presence and absence of a rye cover crop, weed removal needed to begin before weed biomass was 150 g m−2, or approximately 4 wk after planting, to prevent yield loss > 5%. Weed density was less in 2010 than in 2009, so weed removal was not required until 7 wk after planting, at which point weed biomass values were 175 and 385 g m−2in the presence and absence of a cover crop, respectively.

The critical weed-free period in glyphosate-resistant soybean in Ontario is similar to previous estimates using glyphosate-susceptible soybean

2019 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-443
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
Robert E. Nurse ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Peter H. Sikkema
Keyword(s):  
Growth Stage ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Beginning Of Flowering ◽  
Minimal Reduction

A study consisting of 13 field experiments was conducted during 2014–2016 in southwestern Ontario and southcentral Nebraska (Clay Center) to determine the effect of late-emerging weeds on the yield of glyphosate-resistant soybean. Soybean was maintained weed-free with glyphosate (900 g ae ha−1) up to the VC (cotyledon), V1 (first trifoliate), V2 (second trifoliate), V3 (third trifoliate), V4 (fourth trifoliate), and R1 (beginning of flowering) growth stages, after which weeds were allowed to naturally infest the soybean plots. The total weed density was reduced to 24%, 63%, 67%, 72%, 76%, and 92% in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) when soybean was maintained weed-free up to the VC, V1, V2, V3, V4, and R1 soybean growth stages, respectively. The total weed biomass was reduced by 33%, 82%, 95%, 97%, 97%, and 100% in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) and 28%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% in Environment 2 (Clay Center) when soybean was maintained weed-free up to the VC, V1, V2, V3, V4, and R1 stages, respectively. The critical weed-free periods for a 2.5%, 5%, and 10% yield loss in soybean were the V1–V2, VC–V1, and VC–V1 soybean stages in Environment 1 (Exeter, Harrow, and Ridgetown) and V2–V3, V2–V3, and V1–V2 soybean stages in Environment 2 (Clay Center), respectively. For the weed species evaluated, there was a minimal reduction in weed biomass (5% or less) when soybean was maintained weed-free beyond the V3 soybean growth stage. These results shows that soybean must be maintained weed-free up to the V3 growth stage to minimize yield loss due to weed interference.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control (CPWC) in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan ISIK ◽  
Adem AKCA ◽  
Emine KAYA ALTOP ◽  
Nihat TURSUN ◽  
Husrev MENNAN
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Weed Interference

Accurate assessment of crop-weed control period is an essential part for planning an effective weed management for cropping systems. Field experiments were conducted during the seasonal growing periods of potato in 2012 and 2013 in Kayseri, Turkey to assess critical period for weed control (CPWC) in potato. A four parameter log-logistic model was used to assist in monitoring and analysing two sets of related, relative crop yield. Data was obtained during the periods of increased weed interference and as a comparison, during weed-free periods. In both years, the relative yield of potato decreased with a longer period of weed-interference whereas increased with increasing length of weed free period. In 2012, the CPWC ranged from 112 to 1014 GDD (Growing Degree Days) which corresponded to 8 to 66 days after crop emergence (DAE) and between 135-958 GDD (10 to 63 DAE) in the following year based on a 5% acceptable yield loss. Weed-free conditions needed to be established as early as the first week after crop emergence and maintained as late as ten weeks after crop emergence to avoid more than 5% yield loss in the potato. The results suggest that CPWC could well assist potato producers to significantly reduce the expense of their weed management programs as well as improving its efficacy.

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Response to Lactofen at Various Postemergence Timings1

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Dotray ◽  
W. J. Grichar ◽  
T. A. Baughman ◽  
E. P. Prostko ◽  
T. L. Grey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
High Plains ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Texas High Plains ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea L ◽  
Seed Fill ◽  
Preharvest Interval

Abstract Field experiments were conducted at nine locations in Texas and Georgia in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate peanut tolerance to lactofen. Lactofen at 220 g ai/ha plus crop oil concentrate was applied to peanut at 6 leaf (lf), 6 lf followed by (fb) 15 days after the initial treatment (DAIT), 15 DAIT alone, 6 lf fb 30 DAIT, 30 DAIT alone, 6 lf fb 45 DAIT, 45 DAIT alone, 6 lf fb 60 DAIT, and 60 DAIT alone in weed-free plots. Lactofen caused visible leaf bronzing at all locations. Yield loss was observed when applications were made 45 DAIT, a timing that would correspond to plants in the R5 (beginning seed) to R6 (full seed) stage of growth. At all locations except the Texas High Plains, this application timing was within the 90 d preharvest interval. Growers who apply lactofen early in the peanut growing season to small weeds should have confidence that yields will not be negatively impacted despite dramatic above-ground injury symptoms; however, applications made later in the season, during seed fill, may adversely affect yield.

Cotton Planting Date Affects The Critical Period of Benghal Dayflower (Commelina benghalensis) Control

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Webster ◽  
Timothy L. Grey ◽  
J. Timothy Flanders ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cotton Field ◽  
Commelina Benghalensis ◽  
Critical Range ◽  
Benghal Dayflower

Benghal dayflower (formerly known as tropical spiderwort) is one of the most troublesome weeds in Georgia cotton. Field studies were conducted from 2003 to 2005 to evaluate the relationship between the duration of Benghal dayflower interference and cotton yield to establish optimum weed-control timing. To determine the critical period of weed control (CPWC), Benghal dayflower interference with cotton was allowed or prohibited in 2-wk intervals between 0 to 12 wk after crop planting. Maximum yield loss from Benghal dayflower in May-planted cotton was 21 to 30% in 2004 and 2005, whereas cotton planting delayed until June resulted in maximum yield losses of 40 to 60%. June-planted cotton had a CPWC of 190 to 800 growing degree days (GDD) in 2004 (52-d interval beginning at 16 d after planting [DAP]) and 190 to 910 GDD in 2005 (59-d interval beginning at 18 DAP). In contrast, May-planted cotton in 2005 had a narrower CPWC interval of 396 to 587 GDD (18 d) that occurred 3 wk later in the growing season (initiated at 39 DAP). May-planted cotton in 2004 did not have a critical range of weed-free conditions. Instead, a single weed removal at 490 GDD (44 DAP) averted a yield loss greater than 5%. It is recommended that fields infested with Benghal dayflower be planted with cotton early in the growing season to minimize weed interference with the crop.

Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Simulated 2,4-D and Dicamba Drift

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Everitt ◽  
J. Wayne Keeling
Keyword(s):  
Good Predictor ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Lint Yield ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Cotton Lint ◽  
Late Season ◽  
Crop Injury

Field experiments were conducted in Hale Co., TX, in 2005 and 2006 to determine the effects of 2,4-D amine and dicamba applied at varying rates and growth stages on cotton growth and yield, and to correlate cotton injury levels and lint yield reductions. Dicamba or 2,4-D amine was applied at four growth stages including cotyledon to two-leaf, four- to five-leaf, pinhead square, and early bloom. Dicamba and 2,4-D amine were applied at 1/2, 1/20, 1/200, and 1/2000 of the recommended use rate. Crop injury was recorded at 14 days after treatments and late-season, and cotton lint yields were determined. Across all growth stages, 2,4-D caused more crop injury and yield loss than dicamba. Cotton lint was reduced more by later applications (especially pinhead square) and injury underestimated yield loss with 2,4-D. Visual estimates of injury overestimated yield loss when 2,4-D or dicamba was applied early (cotyledon to two leaf) and was not a good predictor of yield loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document