Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:21:39.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time of wild oat (Avena fatua) panicle clipping influences seed viability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2020

Breanne D. Tidemann Open the ORCID record for Breanne D. Tidemann [Opens in a new window] ,
K. Neil Harker ,
Eric N. Johnson ,
Christian J. Willenborg  and
Steve J. Shirtliffe
Breanne D. Tidemann*
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, AB, Canada
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, AB, Canada
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, University of Saskatchewan, Department of Plant Sciences, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Christian J. Willenborg
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Saskatchewan, Department of Plant Sciences, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Steve J. Shirtliffe
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Saskatchewan, Department of Plant Sciences, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Breanne D. Tidemann, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, ABT4L 1W1, Canada. (Email: Breanne.tidemann@canada.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild oat (Avena fatua L.) is one of the most problematic weed species in western Canada due to widespread populations, herbicide resistance, and seed dormancy. In wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and especially in shorter crops such as lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.), A. fatua seed panicles elongate above the crop canopy, which can facilitate physical cutting of the panicles (clipping) to reduce viable seed return to the seedbank. However, the viability of A. fatua seed at the time of panicle elongation is not known. The objective of this study was to determine the viability of A. fatua seed at successive time intervals after elongation above a wheat or lentil crop canopy. A 2-yr panicle clipping and removal study in wheat and lentil was conducted in Lacombe, AB, and Saskatoon, SK, in 2015 and 2016 to determine the onset of viability in A. fatua seeds at successive clipping intervals. Manual panicle clipping of A. fatua panicles above each crop canopy began when the majority of panicles were visible above respective crop canopies and continued weekly until seed shed began. At the initiation of panicle clipping, A. fatua seed viability was between 0% and 10%. By the last clipping treatment (approximately 6 to 7 wk after elongation), 95% of the A. fatua seeds were viable. Seed moisture and awn angle were not good predictors of A. fatua viability, and therefore were unlikely to provide effective tools to estimate appropriate timing for implementation of A. fatua clipping as a management technique. Based on A. fatua seed viability, earlier clipping of A. fatua is likely to be more effective in terms of population management and easier to implement in shorter crops such as lentil. Investigations into long-term effects of clipping on A. fatua populations are needed to evaluate the efficacy of this management strategy on A. fatua.

Keywords

Alternative weed managementheight selectivityintegrated weed managementphysical weed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 260 - 267
Copyright
© 2020, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Published by 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Bhagirath Chauhan, The University of Queensland.

References

[AAF] Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (2017) Crop Protection. AGDEX 606-1. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex32. Accessed: May 26, 2017Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Blackshaw, RE, Harker, KN, Tidemann, BD (2018) Weed seed shatter in spring wheat in Alberta. Can J Plant Sci 98:107–117Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Francis, A, Hall, LM (2012) The biology of Canadian weeds. 27. Avena fatua L. (updated). Can J Plant Sci 92:1329–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Lozinski, C, Shirriff, S, Brenzil, C (2013) Herbicide-resistant weeds in the Canadian Prairies: 2007–2011. Weed Technol 27:171–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Thomas, AG, Legere, A, Kelner, DJ, Van Acker, RC, Meers, S (1999) Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in small-grain production areas. Weed Technol 13:612–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, NR, Beckie, HJ, Willenborg, CJ, Shirtliffe, SJ, Schoenau, JJ, Johnson, EN (2016) Evaluating seed shatter of economically important weed species. Weed Sci 64:673–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, NR, Beckie, HJ, Willenborg, CJ, Shirtliffe, SJ, Schoenau, JJ, Johnson, EN (2017) Seed shatter of six economically important weed species in producer fields in Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci 97:266–276Google Scholar
Curran, WS, Morrow, LA, Whitesides, RE (1987) Lentil (Lens culinaris) yield as influenced by duration of wild oat (Avena fatua) interference. Weed Sci 35:669–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Frisvold, G (2017) Are herbicides a once in a century method of weed control? Pest Manag Sci 73:2209–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Hill, JD, Chase, CA, Johanns, AM, Liebman, M (2012) Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7:e47149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duke, SO (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manag Sci 68:505–512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, GS, Holmes, JE (1997) Efficacy of cultural control methods for combating herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum. Pestic Sci 51:352–3583.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, KN, Blackshaw, RE, Clayton, GW (2001) Timing weed removal in field pea (Pisum sativum). Weed Technol 15:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: October 4, 2019Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP (1991) The World's Worst Weeds—Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger. 609 pGoogle Scholar
Just Common Sense (2019) CombCut. http://www.justcommonsense.eu. Accessed: October 4, 2019Google Scholar
Kulkarni, SS, Dosdall, LM, Willenborg, CJ (2015) The role of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in weed seed consumption: a review. Weed Sci 63:355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M, Gallandt, ER (1997) Many little hammers: ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343in Jackson, LE, ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medd, RW, McMillan, MG, Cook, AS (1992) Spray-topping of wild oats (Avena spp.) with selective herbicides. Plant Prot Q 7:62–65Google Scholar
O’Donovan, JT, de St Remy, EA, O’Sullivan, A, Dew, DA, Sharma, AK (1985) Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 33:498–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, MDK (2016) Diverse approaches to herbicide-resistant weed management. Weed Sci 64(SP1):570–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawma, JT, Mohler, CL (2002) Evaluating seed viability by an unimbibed seed crush test in comparison with the tetrazolium test. Weed Technol 16:781–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirtliffe, SJ, Entz, MH, Van Acker, RC (2000) Avena fatua development and seed shatter as related to thermal time. Weed Sci 48:555–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smitchger, JA, Burker, IC, Yenish, JP (2012) The critical period of weed control in lentil (Lens culinaris) in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Sci 60:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steadman, KJ, Eaton, DM, Plummer, JA, Ferris, DG, Powles, SB (2006) Late-season non-selective herbicide application reduces Lolium rigidum seed numbers, seed viability, and seedling fitness. Aust J Agric Res 57:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thill, DC, O’Donovan, JT, Mallory-Smith, CA (1994) Integrated weed management strategies for delaying herbicide resistance in wild oats. Phytoprotection 75:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Harker, KN, Alexander, BCS (2016) Identifying critical control points in the wild oat (Avena fatua) life cycle and the potential effects of harvest weed-seed control. Weed Sci 64:463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Harker, KN, Beckie, HJ (2017a) Factors affecting weed seed devitalization with the Harrington Seed Destructor. Weed Sci 65:650–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Harker, KN, Beckie, HJ, Johnson, EN, Stevenson, FC (2017b) Suitability of wild oat (Avena fatua), false cleavers (Galium spurium), and volunteer canola (Brassica napus) for harvest weed seed control in western Canada. Weed Sci 65:769–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Harrington, RB, Powles, SB (2012) Harrington Seed Destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci 52:1343–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weed Clipper (2019) BTT Weed Clipper. http://www.weedclipper.com. Accessed: October 4, 2019Google Scholar
Zhang, T, Johnson, EN, Mueller, TC, Willenborg, CJ (2017) Early application of harvest aid herbicides adversely impacts lentil. Agron J 109:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar