scholarly journals Intercropping organic field peas with barley, oats and mustard improves weed control but has variable effects on grain yield and net returns

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Bailey-Elkin ◽  
Michelle K. Carkner ◽  
Martin Entz
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Separate Experiment ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Field Peas

Interest in intercropping semi-leafless field peas (Pisum sativum L.) is increasing as a means of weed control in organic production. We evaluated field pea (cv. CDC Amarillo) grown alone or intercropped with three seeding rates of either barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), mustard (Brassica juncea L.), or oats (Avena sativa L.). A full seeding rate of field pea was used in each instance, resulting in an additive intercropping design. Each crop combination was conducted in a separate experiment, three times over two years (2019 and 2020) in Carman, Manitoba. Measurements included crop and weed biomass production, grain yield and quality, and net return. Intercrops reduced weed biomass at maturity from 17 to 44% with barley and oats being more suppressive than mustard. Intercrops also reduced field pea yield from 6 to 26%, but increased field pea seed mass. Barley at the high seeding rate provided the most weed suppression per unit of field pea yield loss (2.62 kg of weed suppression per kg of field pea yield loss) compared with oat (1.29) and mustard (0.87). Barley and mustard intercrops decreased net return compared to monoculture field pea. Under low weed pressure (1150 kg ha-1 weed biomass at maturity) and earlier seeding, oat intercrops reduced net return. However, under weedy conditions (2649 kg ha-1) and later seeding, field pea-oat intercrops significantly increased net return. In conclusion, while all three intercrop mixtures reduced weed biomass, reductions in field pea yields were observed, and net return benefits were observed only in certain circumstances.

Integrated Weed Management Using Planting Pattern, Cultivar, and Herbicide in Dry-Seeded Rice in Northwest India

Weed Science ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulshan Mahajan ◽  
Vikas Poonia ◽  
Bhagirath S. Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Rice Grain ◽  
Planting Pattern ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Northwest India

Field experiments were conducted in Punjab, India, in 2011 and 2012 to study the integrated effect of planting pattern [uniform rows (20-cm spacing) and paired rows (15-, 25-, and 15-cm spacing)], cultivars (PR-115 and IET-21214), and weed control treatments (nontreated control, pendimethalin 750 g ai ha−1, bispyribac-sodium 25 g ai ha−1, and pendimethalin 750 g ha−1 followed by bispyribac-sodium 25 g ha−1) on weed suppression and rice grain yield in dry-seeded rice. In the nontreated control, IET-21214 had higher grain yield than PR-115 in both planting patterns. However, such differences were not observed within the herbicide treatment. IET-21214 in paired rows, even in nontreated control, provided grain yield (4.7 t ha−1) similar to that in uniform rows coupled with the sole application of pendimethalin (4.3 t ha−1) and bispyribac-sodium (5.0 t ha−1). In uniform rows, sequential application of pendimethalin (PRE) and bispyribac-sodium (POST) provided the highest grain yield among all the weed control treatments and this treatment produced grain yield of 5.9 and 6.1 t ha−1 for PR-115 and IET-21214, respectively. Similarly, in paired rows, PR-115 in paired rows treated with sequential application of pendimethalin and bispyribac-sodium had highest grain yield (6.1 t ha−1) among all the weed control treatments. However, IET-21214 with the sole application of bispyribac-sodium produced grain yield similar to the sequential application of pendimethalin and bispyribac-sodium. At 30 days after sowing, PR-115 in paired rows coupled with pendimethalin application accrued weed biomass (10.7 g m−2) similar to the sequential application of pendimethalin and bispyribac-sodium coupled with uniform rows (8.1 g m−2). Similarly, IET-21214 with bispyribac-sodium application provided weed control similar to the sequential application of pendimethalin and bispyribac-sodium. Our study implied that grain yield of some cultivars could be improved by exploring their competitiveness through paired-row planting patterns with less use of herbicides.

scholarly journals Spring-planted cover crops for weed control in soybean

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Katja Koehler-Cole ◽  
Christopher A. Proctor ◽  
Roger W. Elmore ◽  
David A. Wedin
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Biomass Production ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Crop Species ◽  
Cold Temperatures ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Small Grains

Abstract Replacing tillage with cover crops (CC) for weed management in corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] systems with mechanical weed control has many soil health benefits but in the western Corn Belt, CC establishment after harvest is hampered by cold temperatures, limited labor and few compatible CC species. Spring-planted CC may be an alternative, but information is lacking on suitable CC species. Our objective was to evaluate four spring-planted CC with respect to biomass production and weed suppression, concurrent with CC growth and post-termination. Cover crop species tested were oat (Avena sativa L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), brown mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] and yellow mustard (Brassica hirta Moench). They were compared to no-CC treatments that were either tilled pre- and post-planting of soybean (no-CC tilled) or not tilled at all (no-CC weedy). CC were planted in late March to early April, terminated 52–59 days later using an undercutter, and soybean was planted within a week. The experiment had a randomized complete block design with four replications and was repeated for 3 years. Mustards and small grains produced similar amounts of biomass (1.54 Mg ha−1) but mustard biomass production was more consistent (0.85–2.72 Mg ha−1) than that of the small grains (0.35–3.81 Mg ha−1). Relative to the no-CC weedy treatment, mustards suppressed concurrent weed biomass in two out of 3 years, by 31–97%, and small grains suppressed concurrent weed biomass in only 1 year, by 98%. Six weeks after soybean planting, small grains suppressed weed biomass in one out of 3 years, by 79% relative to the no-CC weedy treatment, but mustards did not provide significant weed suppression. The no-CC tilled treatment suppressed weeds each year relative to the no-CC weedy treatment, on average 87%. The ineffective weed control by CC reduced soybean biomass by about 50% six weeks after planting. While spring-planted CC have the potential for pre-plant weed control, they do not provide adequate early season weed suppression for soybean.

scholarly journals Grain yield and competitive ability against weeds in modern and heritage common wheat cultivars are differently influenced by sowing density

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariateresa Lazzaro ◽  
Ambrogio Costanzo ◽  
Dalia Hosam Farag ◽  
Paolo Bàrberi
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Common Wheat ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Wheat Cultivars ◽  
Modern Cultivar ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Growing Seasons ◽  
Viable Seeds ◽  
Crop Stand

Sowing density can have a strong impact on crop stand development during wheat growing cycle. In organic and low-input agriculture, and therefore with minimum or nil use of chemical herbicides, increased sowing density is expected to affect not only grain yield but also weed suppression. In this study we tested, under Mediterranean conditions, six common wheat cultivars (three modern and three heritage) and two three-component mixtures (arranged by combining the three modern or the three heritage cultivars). The different crop stands were tested at sowing densities of 250 (low) and 400 (high, similar to standard sowing density used by local farmers) viable seeds m-2 for two growing seasons. We did not detect a significant effect of crop stand diversity (single cultivars vs mixtures) on grain yield and weed suppression. Differences were ascribed to type of cultivars used (heritage vs modern). Compared to high sowing density, in modern cultivars grain yield did not decrease significantly with low sowing density whereas in heritage cultivars it increased by 15.6%, possibly also because of 21.5% lower plant lodging. Weed biomass increased with low sowing density both in heritage and modern cultivar crop stand types. However, heritage crop stands had, on average, a lower weed biomass (56%) than modern crop stands. Moreover, weed biomass in heritage crop stands at low density (6.82 ± 1.50 g m-2) was lower than that of modern cultivars at the same sowing density (15.54 ± 3.35 g m-2), confirming the higher suppressive potential of the former. We can conclude that lower sowing density can be advisable when using heritage crop stands as it keeps productivity while decreasing plant lodging and maintaining weeds under control.

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.

Integrated Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Management Affects Spring Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Yield and Economics

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Barton ◽  
Donald C. Thill ◽  
Bahman Shafii
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Integrated Control ◽  
Spring Barley ◽  
Barley Grain ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Wild Oat ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Net Return

The effect of barley seeding rate and row spacing, and triallate, diclofop, and difenzoquat herbicide rate on barley grain yield and quality, and wild oat control were evaluated in field experiments near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, in 1989 and 1990. The purpose of the study was to develop integrated control strategies for wild oat in spring barley. Barley row spacing (9 and 18 cm) did not affect barley grain yield. Barley grain yield was greatest when barley was seeded at 134 or 201 kg ha–1compared to 67 kg ha–1. Wild oat control increased as wild oat herbicide rate increased and barley grain yield was greatest when wild oat herbicides were applied. However, barley grain yield was similar when wild oat biomass was reduced by either 65 or 85% by applications of half and full herbicide rates, respectively. Net return was greatest when the half rate of herbicide was applied to 100 wild oat plants per m2and was greatest when half or full herbicide rates were applied to 290 wild oat plants per m2. Net return increased when the seeding rate was increased to 134 or 201 kg ha–1when no herbicide was applied and when 290 wild oat plants per m2were present.

Impact of Spring Wheat Planting Density, Row Spacing, and Mechanical Weed Control on Yield, Grain Protein, and Economic Return in Maine

Weed Science ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren N. Kolb ◽  
Eric R. Gallandt ◽  
Ellen B. Mallory
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Planting Density ◽  
Grain Protein ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Farmer Practices

Effective in-season weed management options are limited for organic cereal farmers. Two alternatives to current farmer practices are improving efficacy of physical weed control through use of interrow cultivation or increasing the competitive ability of the crop through elevated seeding rates and more uniform spatial planting patterns. It is unknown how these two methods affect yield, quality, and economic returns. Field experiments were conducted in the northeast United States to determine whether the yield gain from increased weed control from these contrasting weed management strategies resulted in increased net returns and how these different systems affected grain quality. Wheat was planted at two seeding rates (400 and 600 plants m−2), in three row spacings (11, 18, and 23 cm). A fourth crop arrangement that approaches a more uniform spatial distribution through a combination of drilling and broadcasting seed was included. For weed control, treatments received tine harrowing. Wheat sown in wide rows also received interrow cultivation. Each system was sown in the presence and absence of condiment mustard, which was sown as a surrogate weed. Increased seeding rate reduced weed density 64% compared to a crop-free check and 30% compared to regional farmers' practices of 18-cm rows and 400 plants m−2. Increased seeding rates lowered grain protein 5% compared to standard seeding rates. Wide rows, in combination with interrow cultivation, reduced weed density 62%, increased yield 16%, and net returns 19% compared to regional organic practices. Significant increases in grain N were limited to weed-free plots. While increased seeding rates improved weed suppression, the high input cost of organic seed make this an unsatisfactory alternative to interrow cultivation and current farmer practices, as yield would need to be. 15 t ha−1higher at elevated density to offset the extra cost of seed.

Increased seeding rate and multiple methods of mechanical weed control reduce weed biomass in a poorly competitive organic crop

2020 ◽  
Vol 245 ◽  
pp. 107648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr S. Alba ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S.N. Duddu ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Multiple Methods ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

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.

scholarly journals The Impact of Weeding Regime, Planting Density, and Growth Habits on Watermelon Yield in an Organic System

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 571-577
Author(s):  
Suzanne P. Stone ◽  
George E. Boyhan ◽  
W. Carroll Johnson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Growth Habit ◽  
Southeastern United States ◽  
Weed Suppression ◽  
Planting Density ◽  
Separate Experiment ◽  
Organic System ◽  
Growth Habits ◽  
The Impact

The southeastern United States produces 50% of U.S. conventional watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) but only 7% of U.S. organic watermelon. Weeds are a major threat to watermelon yield in the southeastern United States, and organic weed control is estimated to cost 20-times more than conventional herbicide programs. The objectives of this study were to determine the optimal weed control regime to reduce hand-weeding costs while maintaining yield and to compare the weed suppression of two watermelon types with differing growth habits in an organic system. In 2014 and 2015, watermelon plots were randomly assigned to the following treatments in a factorial arrangement: vine or compact growth habit; 1.0- or 0.5-m in-row spacing; and weekly weed control (kept weed-free by hoeing and hand-pulling weeds) for 0, 4, or 8 weeks after transplanting (WAT). At the time of the watermelon harvest, not weeding resulted in average total weed densities of 86.6 and 87.0 weeds/m2, and weeding for 4 WAT resulted in average total weed densities of 26.4 and 7.0 weeds/m2 in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Nonetheless, weeding for 4 WAT resulted in watermelon yields and fruit counts comparable to those of weeding for 8 WAT during both years. This partial-season weeding regime resulted in 67% and 63% weeding cost reductions for vine and compact plants, respectively, in 2014, and a 43% reduction for both growth habit types in 2015. In 2015, a separate experiment that evaluated weeding regimes that lasted 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 WAT found that yields resulting from weeding for 3 WAT were greater than those resulting from weeding for 2 WAT. However, the yields did not differ when weeding was performed for 4 WAT and 8 WAT.

scholarly journals Effect of water management and weed control treatments on the performance of transplanted aman rice

1970 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
MH Kabir ◽  
MN Bari ◽  
M Moynul Haque ◽  
GJU Ahmed ◽  
JMS Islam
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Control Efficiency ◽  
Free Treatment ◽  
Weed Control Efficiency ◽  
Hand Weeding

A study was conducted from June to December 2003 to assess weed dynamics and yield performance of transplanted aman rice (cv. BRRI Dhan39) in different weed control treatments e.g. two hand weedings at 15 and 40 DAT; Weeding by BRRI Weeder at 20 and 40 DAT; Rifit 500EC @ 1L/ha at 7 DAT; Rifit 500EC @ 1 L/ha at 7 DAT and one hand weeding at 40 DAT; Butachlor 5G @ 2 kg/ha at 7 DAT; Butachlor 5G @ 2 kg/ha at 7 DAT and one hand weeding at 40 DAT along with weed free and unweeded check under both good and poor water management practices. Weed density, weed biomass and weed control efficiency were significantly influenced by different weed control treatments under both water management practices. Other than weed free treatment, Butachlor 5G @ 2 kg/ha applied at 7 DAT along with one hand weeding at 40 DAT showed the best performance under good water management with minimum weed density (16 g/m2) as well as weed biomass (9.27 g/m2) and the highest weed control efficiency (82.57%). Yield and yield components were also significantly influenced by different weed control treatments and water management. The highest grain yield (5.22 t/ha) was obtained under good water management in weed free treatment followed by Butachlor 5G @ 2 kg/ ha and one hand weeding (4.96 t/ha) under same water management. Results revealed that integration of approaches, particularly Butachlor application along with one manual weeding accompanied by proper water management might be the best option to combat weed problems as well as to obtain satisfactory grain yield in transplanted aman rice. Key Words: Transplanted aman rice, water management, weed control treatment and yield. doi:10.3329/bjar.v33i3.1599 Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 33(3) : 399-408, September 2008

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document