Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:29:52.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual effects of crop rotation and weed management on a wheat test crop and weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Légère  and
F. Craig Stevenson
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
142 Rogers Road, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 3T6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop rotations, particularly those that include legumes, often result in improved soil quality and crop yields. A study was conducted to confirm the presence and persistence of the residual effects of crop rotation and weed management on a test crop and weeds in three tillage systems (moldboard plow [MP]; chisel plow [CP]; no tillage [NT]). Rotation (spring barley monoculture and spring barley–red clover rotation) and weed management (intensive, moderate, minimum) treatments, initiated in 1987, were terminated, and a test crop of spring wheat was grown in 1995 and 1996. Tillage treatments were maintained throughout. Multivariate analysis showed that weed communities were more affected by treatment termination in the rotation NT treatment with minimum weed management than in all other treatments. The former treatment was dominated by perennial broadleaf weeds but sustained adequate wheat yields (3.3 Mg ha−1) compared with the monoculture (1.0 Mg ha−1) one year after termination. Weed communities in CP and MP plots were less affected by treatment termination. Yet, changes in herbicide use at termination caused the virtual elimination of quackgrass from tilled plots and allowed field pennycress to become ubiquitous across treatments. Residual effects from crop rotation were more important than those from weed management in increasing wheat yields in tilled systems. Differences in wheat yield in NT systems 2 yr after treatment termination were attributed to residual effects from previous weed management rather than from crop rotation. Beneficial effects of crop rotation and weed management may persist for 2 yr but will vary according to tillage system.

Keywords

Chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. STEMEfield pennycress, Thlaspi arvense L. THLARhempnettle, Galeopsis tetrahit L. GAETEquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREred clover, Trifolium pratense L. TRFPRspring barley, Hordeum vulgare L. HORVXspring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.sun spurge, Euphorbia helioscopia L. EPHHECereal–forage rotationconservation tillageno tillageprincipal components (PC) analysisweed communitieszero tillage
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 101 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © 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

[AFEQ] Association des fabricants d'engrais du Québec. 1990. Guide de Fertilisation. Montréal, QC, Canada: AFEQ. 139 p.Google Scholar
Angers, D. A., Bissonnette, N., Légère, A., and Samson, N. 1993a. Microbial and biochemical changes induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production. Can. J. Soil Sci. 73:39–50.Google Scholar
Angers, D. A., Samson, N., and Légère, A. 1993b. Early changes in water-stable aggregation induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production. Can. J. Soil Sci. 73:51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, D. L., Légère, A., and Samson, N. 1996. Évolution des stocks semenciers en fonction de l'intensité du travail du sol et du désherbage, dans un assolement orge-trèfle rouge. Xième Colloque International sur la Biologie des Mauvaises Herbes. France: Dijon. pp. 277–281.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1,247–1,258.Google Scholar
Bullied, W. J., Entz, M. H., and Smith, S. R. Jr. 1999. No-till alfalfa stand termination strategies: alfalfa control and wheat and barley production. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:71–83.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D. 1972. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. Pages 105–155 In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., and Nerlove, S. B., eds. Multidimensional Scaling. Volume I, Theory. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Dale, M.R.T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors including management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot. 70:1,931–1,939.CrossRefGoogle 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., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42:184–194.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of postemergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. 1986. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. Pages 213–236 In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1987. Long-term effects of 2,4-D applications on plants. I. Effects on the weed community in a wheat crop. Can. J. Bot. 66:2,530–2,536.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1988. Long-term effects of 2,4-D applications on plants. II. Herbicide avoidance by Chenopodium album and Thlaspi arvense . Can. J. Bot. 66:230–235.Google Scholar
Hume, L., Tessier, S., and Dyck, F. B. 1991. Tillage and rotation influences on weed community composition in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:783–789.Google Scholar
Jennrich, R. I. and Schluchter, M. D. 1996. Unbalanced repeated-measures models with structured covariance matrices. Biometrics 42:805–820.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Bai, Y. 1999. Competitive attributes of oat (Avena sativa), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) are conserved in no-till cropping systems. Weed Sci. 47:712–719.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci. 47:112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A., Samson, N., Rioux, R., Angers, D. A., and Simard, R. R. 1997. Response of spring barley to crop rotation, conservation tillage, and weed management intensity. Agron. J. 89:628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C., and Samson, N. 2001. Tillage and weed management effects on forage production in a barley-red clover rotation. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:405–412.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 656 p.Google Scholar
Mallory, E. B., Posner, J. L., and Baldock, J. O. 1998. Performance, economics, and adoption of cover crops in Wisconsin cash grain rotations: on-farm trials. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 13:2–11.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed management and crop rotations influence populations of several broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 49:106–122.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. 1964. Theory of cyclic rotation experiments. J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B 26:1–45.Google Scholar
Preece, D. A. 1986. Some general principles of crop rotation experiments. Exp. Agric. 22:187–198.Google Scholar
Raimbault, B. A. and Vyn, T. J. 1991. Crop rotation and tillage effects on corn growth and soil structural stability. Agron. J. 83:979–985.Google Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32:483–491.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. Algorithms for the PRINQUAL and TRANSREG Procedures. SAS Technical Rep. R-108. Cary NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 21 p.Google Scholar
Satorre, E. H. and Snaydon, R. W. 1992. A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 32:45–55.Google Scholar
Siemens, L. B. 1963. Cropping systems: An Evaluative Review of Literature. Technical Bulletin No. 1. Manitoba, Canada: Faculty of Agriculture and Home Economics, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Singer, J. W. and Cox, W. J. 1998. Corn growth and yield under different crop rotation, tillage and management systems. Crop Sci. 38:996–1,003.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.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., and Janovicek, K. J. 1996. Integration of cover crops into no-till and ridge-till wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-corn (Zea mays L.) cropping sequence. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7:286–297.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Ogg, A. G. Jr., Papendick, R. I., Thill, D. C., and Alldredge, J. R. 1994. Tillage and weed management affect winter wheat yield in an integrated pest management system. Agron. J. 86:147–154.Google Scholar