The Critical Period of Weed Control for Lentil in Western Canada

Weed Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. K. Fedoruk ◽  
E. N. Johnson ◽  
S. J. Shirtliffe
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Inverse Relationship ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Western Canada ◽  
Crop Canopy ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Residual Herbicide

Weed control in lentil is difficult because lentil is a poor competitor with weeds and few POST broadleaf herbicides are available. Imadazolinone-tolerant lentils have more herbicide options, but the optimum timing for herbicide application is not known. The critical period of weed control (CPWC) is the period in a crop's life cycle when weeds must be controlled in order to prevent yield loss. The objective of this research was to determine the CPWC for lentil. We made lentil remain weedy or weed-free from 0 to 11 aboveground nodes to investigate the durations of weed interference and weed-free period, respectively. It was found that lentil has a CPWC beginning at the five-node stage and continuing to the 10-node stage. There was an inverse relationship between weed biomass and lentil yield; that is, lentil yield was highest when weed biomass is minimal. We propose that the CPWC begins when weeds start to accumulate significant biomass and ends with crop canopy closure. Therefore, to maximize lentil yields, growers should consider using a POST residual herbicide that can control weeds during the CPWC.

The Critical Period of Weed Control in White Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Weed Science ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian L. Woolley ◽  
Thomas E. Michaels ◽  
Michael R. Hall ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton
Keyword(s):  
Phaseolus Vulgaris ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Stages Of Growth ◽  
White Bean ◽  
Pod Number

Field studies were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to determine the critical period for weed control in white bean grown in Ontario. The treatments consisted of either allowing weeds to infest the crop for increasing durations after planting or maintaining plots weed free for increasing durations after planting. The beginning of the critical period was defined as the crop stage by which weed interference reduced yields by 3%. Similarly, the end of the critical period was defined as the crop stage to which the crop had to be weed free to prevent a 3% yield loss. The critical period of weed control occurred between the second-trifoliolate and first-flower stages of growth for all cultivars and years, with the exception of the cultivar ‘OAC Seaforth’ in 1986. The average number of pods per plant for both cultivars was reduced by increasing durations of weed interference after planting in both years. However, pod number of the cultivar OAC Seaforth was reduced at a greater rate in 1986 than ‘Ex Rico 23’. The beginning of the critical period corresponded with the beginning of a rapid increase in total weed biomass.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Determination of the critical period of weed control in corn using a thermal basis

1999 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Bedmar ◽  
Pablo Manetti ◽  
Gloria Monterubbianesi
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Zea Mays L ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Logistic Equations ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Weed Removal

Field studies were conducted over 3 years in southeast Buenos Aires, Argentina, to determine the critical period of weed control in maize (Zea mays L.). The treatments consisted of two different periods of weed interference, a critical weed-free period, and a critical time of weed removal. The Gompertz and logistic equations were fitted to relative yields representing the critical weed-free and the critical time of weed removal, respectively. Accumulated thermal units were used to describe each period of weed-free or weed removal. The critical weed-free period and the critical time of weed removal ranged from 222 to 416 and 128 to 261 accumulated thermal units respectively, to prevent yield losses of 2.5%. Weed biomass proved to be inverse to the crop yield for all the years studied. When weeds competed with the crop from emergence, a large increase in weed biomass was achieved 10 days after crop emergence. However, few weed seedlings emerged and prospered after the 5-6 leaf maize stage (10-20 days after emergence).

scholarly journals Critical Period of Weed Control in Snap Bean on Organic Soils in South Florida

HortScience ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 1129-1132
Author(s):  
Dennis C. Odero ◽  
Alan L. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
South Florida ◽  
Maximum Length ◽  
Organic Soils ◽  
Open Flower ◽  
Trifoliate Leaf ◽  
Snap Bean ◽  
Weed Interference

Field studies were conducted in 2011 and 2012 in Belle Glade, FL, to evaluate the critical period of weed control (CPWC) in snap bean grown on organic soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) of South Florida. Treatments consisting of increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period were imposed at weekly intervals from 0 to 7 weeks after emergence (WAE) of snap bean. The beginning and end of the CPWC based on 2.5%, 5%, and 10% snap bean acceptable yield loss (AYL) levels were determined by fitting log-logistic and Gompertz models to represent increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period, respectively. Based on 2.5% yield loss, the CPWC was 7.2 weeks long, beginning 1.2 (cotyledon and unifoliate leaf) and ending 8.4 WAE (mid-pod set, 50% of pods reached maximum length). At 5% yield loss, the CPWC was 5.0 weeks, beginning 1.7 (first to second trifoliate leaf) and ending 6.7 WAE (mid-flower to early pod set, 50% of flowers open and one pod reached maximum length). At 10% yield loss, the CPWC was 3.0 weeks, beginning 2.2 (second trifoliate leaf) and ending 5.2 WAE (early flowering, one open flower). Based on these results, the beginning of CPWC was hastened, whereas the end was delayed at different yield loss levels showing that acceptable weed control in snap bean on organic soils in the EAA is required throughout much of the growing season to minimize yield loss.

The Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn in Turkey

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan Isik ◽  
Husrev Mennan ◽  
Bekir Bukun ◽  
Ahmet Oz ◽  
Mathieu Ngouajio
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Black Sea Region ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Loss Level

Field studies were conducted in 2001 and 2002 in the Black Sea Region of northern Turkey to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in corn and the effects of weed interference on corn height. Treatments of increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period were imposed at weekly intervals from 0 to 12 wk after crop emergence (WAE). The CPWC was determined with the use of 2.5, 5, and 10% acceptable yield loss levels by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data. With 5% yield loss level, the CPWC was 5 wk, starting at 0.2 WAE and ending at 5.2 WAE, which corresponded to the one- to five-leaf stage of corn. The CPWC increased to 8.9 wk, starting at 0 WAE and ending at 8.9 WAE, at the 2.5% yield loss level. At 10% yield loss level, the CPWC decreased to 1.7 wk, starting at 2.1 WAE and ending at 3.8 WAE.

scholarly journals Critical Period of Weed Control in Aerobic Rice

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Anwar ◽  
A. S. Juraimi ◽  
B. Samedani ◽  
A. Puteh ◽  
A. Man
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Aerobic Rice ◽  
View Point ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Economic View

Critical period of weed control is the foundation of integrated weed management and, hence, can be considered the first step to design weed control strategy. To determine critical period of weed control of aerobic rice, field trials were conducted during 2010/2011 at Universiti Putra Malaysia. A quantitative series of treatments comprising two components, (a) increasing duration of weed interference and (b) increasing length of weed-free period, were imposed. Critical period was determined through Logistic and Gompertz equations. Critical period varied between seasons; in main season, it started earlier and lasted longer, as compared to off-season. The onset of the critical period was found relatively stable between seasons, while the end was more variable. Critical period was determined as 7–49 days after seeding in off-season and 7–53 days in main season to achieve 95% of weed-free yield, and 23–40 days in off-season and 21–43 days in main season to achieve 90% of weed-free yield. Since 5% yield loss level is not practical from economic view point, a 10% yield loss may be considered excellent from economic view point. Therefore, aerobic rice should be kept weed-free during 21–43 days for better yield and higher economic return.

Weed Management in Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Sugar Beet

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan J. Kemp ◽  
Erin C. Taylor ◽  
Karen A. Renner
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Root Yield ◽  
Beet Root ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Sugar Beet Root ◽  
Weed Removal

Field experiments were conducted to determine the critical period of weed interference in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet, and to determine if PRE herbicides increased weed control or sugar beet root yield when glufosinate, glyphosate, or conventional POST herbicides were applied. Glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet root yields were reduced by up to 66 and 67%, respectively, when weeds remained all season in the weedy control treatment compared with yields when weed removal occurred as soon as the weeds were 2.5 cm tall, approximately 2 to 3 wk after planting (WAP). A critical period of weed interference did not occur in this research. The critical time of weed removal was approximately 8 WAP in 1998 and beyond 11 WAP in 1999. Weeds averaged 20 cm in height at 8 WAP and weed densities were greater in 1998 compared with 1999. The critical weed-free period for glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet was 4.5 to 5 WAP in 1998. In 1999, the critical weed-free period at the Michigan Sugar location was 1.5 WAP in glyphosate-resistant sugar beet, and 6.5 WAP in glufosinate-resistant sugar beet for the Michigan Sugar site. Glyphosate or glufosinate POST provided better weed control and resulted in greater sugar beet root yield compared with conventional POST herbicides when data were combined over PRE herbicide treatments. PRE herbicides improved the control of common lambsquarters andAmaranthusspecies in some of the site-years when data were combined over POST treatments, but sugar beet yield did not increase. Our research suggests that PRE herbicides will not be necessary in glyphosate- or glufosinate-resistant sugar beet. To avoid sugar beet yield loss, multiple POST applications of glyphosate or glufosinate will be needed until 6 to 9 WAP to prohibit yield loss from weeds emerging after the last POST application.

The Critical Period of Weed Control in Soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.]

Weed Science ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rene C. Van Acker ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton ◽  
Stephan F. Weise
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Glycine Max L ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides ◽  
Residual Herbicide ◽  
Weed Removal

Field studies were conducted at three locations over 2 yr in southern Ontario to determine the critical period of weed control in soybean. This period generally consisted of two discrete periods, a critical weed-free period and a critical time of weed removal. The critical weed-free period was relatively short in duration and consistent across locations and years. A period of weed control lasting up to the fourth node growth stage (V4), approximately 30 days after emergence (DAE), was adequate to prevent a yield loss of more than 2.5%. The critical time of weed removal was variable across locations and years and ranged, for example, from the second node growth stage (V2) to the beginning pod growth stage (R3), approximately 9 to 38 DAE, at a 2.5% yield loss level. A phenologically based period of most rapid yield loss due to weed interference occurred from beginning bloom stage (R1) to beginning seed stage (R5). The short and consistent critical weed-free period indicates the duration of residual herbicide control necessary in soybean and supports use of nonresidual, postemergence herbicides and mechanical weed control.

scholarly journals Determining the critical period for weed control in high-yielding cotton using common sunflower as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growing Degree Days ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Planting Season

AbstractField studies were conducted over six seasons to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding cotton, using common sunflower as a mimic weed. Common sunflower was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 plants m−2. Common sunflower was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 growing degree days (GDD) after planting. Season-long interference resulted in no harvestable cotton at densities of five or more common sunflower plants m−2. High levels of intraspecific and interspecific competition occurred at the highest weed densities, with increases in weed biomass and reductions in crop yield not proportional to the changes in weed density. Using a 5% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC extended from 43 to 615 GDD, and 20 to 1,512 GDD for one and 50 common sunflower plants m−2, respectively. These results highlight the high level of weed control required in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document