Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:46:53.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual broadleaf crop frequency and residual weed populations in Saskatchewan Parkland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

F. Craig Stevenson  and
Adrian M. Johnston
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
206A Dunlop Street, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2B7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The development of problematic weed populations is a concern in western Canadian fields where canola and pea are grown in a 4-yr sequence with spring cereal grains. Weed densities were examined at a site near Melfort, Saskatchewan, Canada, from 1994 to 1997 in seven zero-till managed crop rotations. Four rotations that included canola, pea, or flax in at least 3 of 4 yr (HBF: high broadleaf–crop frequency) were compared with three rotations that included broadleaf crops grown in 2 of 4 yr (LBF: low broadleaf–crop frequency). Spring wheat and barley were the cereal crops in rotation. Residual (postherbicide application) weed density for each weed species in a given year was summed across all phases for each rotation to reflect the overall weed infestation. Four annual broadleaf weed species were most abundant in 1996 and a second group of three species, having a variety of reproductive strategies, became progressively less abundant as the study progressed. The difference between the HBF and LBF rotations for the density of these species varied and was most prominent in years when environmental conditions were conducive for their growth. More frequent applications of ethafluralin, with its residual weed control, best explained why wild oat and catchweed bedstraw generally were less abundant in the HBF rotations. Of particular interest was the 8 plants m−-2 greater density of dandelion and perennial sowthistle in the HBF vs. LBF rotations in the last year of the study. It is thought that the limited herbicide options for the control of these species could present a future problem if they continued to develop in the HBF rotations. Differences in herbicide use between the HBF and LBF rotations were considered the primary factor controlling the rotation effects on weed density.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAcatchweed bedstraw, Galium aparine L. GALAPdandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers TAROFperennial sowthistle, Sonchus arvensis L. SONARcanola, Brassica napus L. ‘Excel'pea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Express'flax, Linum usitatissimum L. ‘NorLin'Canadian prairie spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘AC Taber'malt barley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Harrington.’Brassica napus L., Pisum sativum L., crop rotations, herbicide rotations, perennial broadleaf weeds, AVEFA, GALAP, SONAR, TAROF
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 208 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

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 Tech. 8: 231–237.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, L., Morrison, I. N., and Kelner, D. 1997. Field and producer survey of ACCase resistant wild oat in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77: 709–715.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41: 409–417.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., and Boyetchko, S. M. 1996. Sustainability, conservation tillage, and weeds in Canada. Can J. Plant Sci. 76: 651–659.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Loeppky, H. A., and Lafond, G. P. 1997. Weeds, diversified rotations, and reduced input levels in zero and conventional tillage. pp. 201–206 in Lafond, G. P., Plas, H. M., and Smith, E. G., eds. PARI Factbook: Bringing Conservation Technology To The Farm, 2nd ed. Swift Current, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52: 921–927.Google Scholar
Dunn, R. and Poisson, D. 1996. Perennial Weed Control for Direct Seeding. Alberta Agriculture, adapted from Agdex 519–6. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 3 p.Google Scholar
Gugel, R. K. and Petrie, G. A. 1992. History, occurrence, impact and control of blackleg in rapeseed. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 14: 36–45.Google Scholar
Kiltie, R. A. and Edwards, R. 1998. Interspecific correlates of squirrel coat patterns: ecology, taxonomy, and body size. Pages 161–170 in Steele, M. A., Merritt, J. F., and Zegers, D. A., eds. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology of Tree Squirrels. Martinsville, VA: Virginia Museum of Natural History, Special Publication 6.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122.Google Scholar
MANDAK. 1997. Advancing the art—weeds. Pages 24–28 in Tanaka, D. L., ed. Zero Tillage—Advancing the Art. Brandon, MB: Manitoba-North Dakota zero-tillage farmers association (MANDAK) publication.Google Scholar
McLaren, D. 1998. Frequency of Canola Rotation Affects Disease Management. Brandon Research Centre NEWSnote, Publication 186. Brandon, MB: Brandon Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Skrzypczak, G. 1985. Environment and bromoxynil phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 34: 101–105.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., McAndrew, D. W., and Thomas, A. G. 1997. Tillage and nitrogen influence weed population dynamics in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Technol. 11: 502–509.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Légère, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1998. Manure, tillage, and rotation effects on the occurrence of crop-weed interference in spring barley cropping systems. Agron. J. 90: 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. 880 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. 1997. Perennial Weeds Increasing in Saskatchewan, According to Weed Survey. Saskatoon Research Centre, Research Letter 97–10. Saskatoon, SK: Saskatoon Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre. 1 p.Google Scholar
Ziegler, A. and Grömping, U. 1998. The generalised estimating equations: a comparison of procedures available in commercial statistical software packages. Biometric. J. 40: 245–260.Google Scholar