Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:33:45.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duration of Tartary Buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) Interference in Several Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. Ann De St. Remy  and
P. Ashley O'Sullivan
E. Ann De St. Remy
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada Res. Stn., Box 1420, Lacombe, Alberta, TOC 1SO
P. Ashley O'Sullivan
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada Res. Stn., Box 1420, Lacombe, Alberta, TOC 1SO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted over a 7-yr period at Lacombe, Alberta, to study the relationship between the duration of Tartary buckwheat interference [Fagopyrum tatarium (L.) Gaertn. # FAGTA] and yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oats (Avena sativa L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), flax (Linum usitatissimum L.), and rapeseed (Brassica campestris L.). The data were pooled over years and analyzed by multiple regression. The equations were as follows: ŷ = 15.46 + 0.39X1 + 0.00x2 −0.11x3 (barley), ŷ = −15.44 + 0.49x1 + 0.02x2 + 0.08x3 (oats), ŷ = −2.04 + 0.39X1 + 0.05x2-0.03x3 (wheat), ŷ = −4.38 + 1.14x1 −0.04x2 + 0.01x3 (flax), and ŷ = −13.85 + 0.40x1 – 0.01x2 + 0.04x3 (rapeseed); where ŷ was the estimated percent yield loss of the crop, x1 was the duration (days) of the Tartary buckwheat in the crop, x2 was the number of Tartary buckwheat plants/m2, and x3 was the number of crop plants/m2. The time that Tartary buckwheat remains in the crop contributed most to the yield loss observed in all crops. Yield loss between 0.4 and 1.1% per day was attributed to this variable alone. For a given x1, x2, and x3 value the order of percent yield loss was flax>oats>wheat> barley>rapeseed.

Keywords

Yield loss equationsAvena sativaBrassica campestrisLinum usitatissimumHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumFAGTA
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , March 1986 , pp. 281 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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

1. Alex, J. F. 1982. Canada. Pages 309–331 in Holzner, W. and Numata, M., eds. Geobotany 2. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. Junk Publishers, The Hague-Boston-London.Google Scholar
2. Bell, A. R. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1968. Effect of duration of wild oat competition in flax. Weed Sci. 16:509–512.Google Scholar
3. Bowden, B. A. and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7:349–359.Google Scholar
4. Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dew, D. A. and Keys, C. H. 1976. An index of competition for estimating loss of rape due to wild oats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:1005–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Frankton, C. and Mulligan, G. A. 1970. Publ. 948. Weeds of Canada. Canada Dep. Agric. 217 pp.Google Scholar
7. Friesen, H. A., Vanden Born, W. H., Keys, C. H., Dryden, R. D., Molberg, E. S., and Siemens, B. 1968. Effect of time of application and dosage of dicamba on the tolerance of wheat, oats and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 48:213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gillespie, G. R. and Miller, S. D. 1984. Sunflower competition in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:105–111.Google Scholar
9. Glauninger, J. and Holzner, W. 1982. Interference between weeds and crops: A review of literature. Pages 149–159 in Holzner, W. and Numata, M., eds. Geobotany 2. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. Junk Publishers, The Hague-Boston-London.Google Scholar
10. Nicholson, J.W.G., McQueen, R., Grant, E. A. and Burgess, P. L. 1976. The feeding value of Tartary buckwheat for ruminants. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 56:803–808.Google Scholar
11. O'Sullivan, P. A. 1980. Control of wild oats and Tartary buckwheat with mixtures of metribuzin and various postemergence wild oat herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1255–1261.Google Scholar
12. O'Sullivan, P. A. 1981. Control of Avena fatua and Fagopyrum tataricum with tank mixtures of linuron+MCPA and sequential applications of linuron, and post-emergence A. fatua herbicides. Weed Res. 21:211–217.Google Scholar
13. O'Sullivan, P. A. 1981. Control of wild oats, green foxtail and Tartary buckwheat with mixtures of propanil or propanil/MCPA and postemergence wild oat herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:383–390.Google Scholar
14. O'Sullivan, P. A. 1982. Response of various broad-leaved weeds, and tolerance of cereals, to soil and foliar applications of DPX-4189. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:715–724.Google Scholar
15. O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. C., Weiss, G. M., and Dew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:725–731.Google Scholar
16. O'Sullivan, P. A., Weiss, G. M., and Kossatz, V. C. 1985. Indices of competition for estimating rapeseed yield loss due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:145–149.Google Scholar
17. Pavlychenko, T. K. and Harrington, J. B. 1934. Competitive efficiency of weeds and cereal crops. Can. J. Res. 10:77–94.Google Scholar
18. Peschken, D. P., Thomas, A. G., and Wise, R. F. 1983. Loss in yield of rapeseed (Brassica napus, B. campestris) caused by perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Weed Sci. 31:740–744.Google Scholar
19. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. The effect of competition duration. Pages 83–93 in Weed-Crop Competition. A review. IPPC, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar