Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:59:47.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Field Pea Seed Residue: a Potential Alternative Weed Control Agent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan M. Marles
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
Thomas D. Warkentin
Affiliation:
Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
Frederick A. Holm*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rick.holm@usask.ca

Abstract

Field pea seed from bin cleaning operations stored overwinter on nearby cropland was observed to correlate with weed and crop growth suppression for up to three subsequent years. To explore the phenomenon more explicitly, plant growth suppression trials were undertaken with soil sampled 18 mo apart from two locations that had contained field pea seed residues. Test plant species grown in the residue-affected and nearby residue-free soils were compared in greenhouse experiments. Germination was either fully inhibited or emergence was delayed by more than one week. Dry matter accumulation of test species grown in residue-affected soil was significantly reduced compared to dry matter of these test species grown in residue-free soil (P < 0.0001). Canola and field pea were inhibited more than wheat and green foxtail over both years. Greenhouse trials also revealed that germination of wild oat was inhibited in the residue-affected soils, although wheat and grassy weeds were less suppressed than dicots overall. Significant reductions of weed species diversity and abundance were correlated to residue-affected soils (P < 0.0001) when compared to residue-free soils using multi-response permutations procedures. Germination of wheat and canola seed was inhibited, using aqueous extracts of weathered pea seeds or extracts of the residue-affected soil in bioassays in sterile media. An allelopathic response was proposed to explain the above results, indicating a need for further research on this system. Weed management strategies could be developed with field pea seed residues to provide innovative weed control techniques.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
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

Anonymous 2007. Canadian Methods and Procedures for Testing Seed. Pages 124: Seed Science and Technology Section, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Government of Canada.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008. Specialty Crop Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK. http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Statistics-Crops. Accessed: May 30, 2010.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2009. Canadian Grain Stocks Jump, Statpub. May 8, 2009. http://www.statpub.com/open/378047.phtml. Accessed: May 30, 2010.Google Scholar
Bais, H. P., Walker, T. S., Stermitz, F. R., Hufbauer, R. A., and Vivanco, J. M. 2002. Enantiomeric-dependent phytotoxic and antimicrobial activity of (±)-catechin: a rhizosecreted racemic mixture from spotted knapweed. Plant Physiol. 128:11731179.Google Scholar
Belz, R. G. 2007. Allelopathy in crop/weed interactions—an update. Pest Manag. Sci. 63:308326.Google Scholar
Bertin, C., Weston, L. A., Huang, T., Jander, G., Owens, T., Meinwald, J., and Schroeder, F. C. 2007. Grass roots chemistry: meta-tyrosine, an herbicidal non-protein amino acid. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104:16,96416,969.Google Scholar
Blair, A., Nissen, S., Brunk, G., and Hufbauer, R. 2006. A lack of evidence for an ecological role of the putative allelochemical (±)-catechin in spotted knapweed invasion success. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:23272331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, A., Weston, L., Nissen, S., Brunk, G., and Hufbauer, R. 2009. The importance of analytical techniques in allelopathy studies with the reported allelochemical catechin as an example. Biological Invasions. 11:325332.Google Scholar
Blum, U., Shafer, S. R., and Lehman, M. E. 1999. Evidence for inhibitory allelopathic interactions involving phenolic acids in field soils: concepts vs. an experimental model. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 18:673693.Google Scholar
Collins, A. S., Chase, C. A., Stall, W. M., and Hutchinson, C. M. 2008. Optimum densities of three leguminous cover crops for suppression of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 56:753761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eom, S., Yang, H., and Weston, L. 2006. An evaluation of the allelopathic potential of selected perennial groundcovers: foliar volatiles of catmint (Nepeta × faassenii) inhibit seedling growth. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:18351848.Google Scholar
Furness, N. H., Adomas, B., Dai, Q., Li, S., and Upadhyaya, M. K. 2008. Allelopathic influence of houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) and its modification by UV-B radiation. Weed Technol. 22:101107.Google Scholar
Hill, E. C., Ngouajio, M., and Nair, M. G. 2006. Differential response of weeds and vegetable crops to aqueous extracts of hairy vetch and cowpea. HortSci. 41:695700.Google Scholar
Hill, E. C., Ngouajio, M., and Nair, M. G. 2007. Allelopathic potential of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) methanol and ethyl acetate extracts on weeds and vegetables. Weed Technol. 21:437444.Google Scholar
Janarthanan, S., Suresh, P., Radke, G., Morgan, T. D., and Oppert, B. 2008. Arcelins from an Indian wild pulse, Lablab purpureus, and insecticidal activity in storage pests. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56:16761682.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Weed communities associated with arable Saskatchewan farm management systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:177185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, J. V. and Jessop, R. S. 1982. Effects of residues of crop plants on germination and early growth of wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 33:909916.Google Scholar
Macías, F. A., Molinillo, J. M. G., Varela, R. M., and Galindo, J. C. G. 2007. Allelopathy—a natural alternative for weed control. Pest Manag. Sci. 63:327348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 2006. PC-ORD, Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Gleneden Beach, OR MjM Software.Google Scholar
Perry, L. G., Thelen, G. C., Ridenour, W. M., Weir, T. L., Callaway, R. M., Paschke, M. W., and Vivanco, J. M. 2005. Dual role for an allelochemical: (±)-catechin from Centaurea maculosa root exudates regulates conspecific seedling establishment. J. Ecol. 93:11261135.Google Scholar
Shiraishi, S., Watanabe, I., Kuno, K., and Fujii, Y. 2002. Allelopathic activity of leaching from dry leaves and exudates from roots of groundcover plants assayed on agar. Weed Biol. Manag. 2:133142.Google Scholar
Shiraishi, S., Watanabe, I., Kuno, K., and Fujii, Y. 2005. Evaluation of the allelopathic activity of five Oxalidaceae cover plants and the demonstration of potent weed suppression by Oxalis species. Weed Biol. Manag. 5:128136.Google Scholar
Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., and Kohli, R. K. 2003. Allelopathic interactions and allelochemicals: New possibilities for sustainable weed management. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 22:239.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2006. Rapid change in the germinable fraction of the weed seed bank in crop rotations. Weed Sci. 54:10941100.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. G., Fields, P. G., and Elder, J. L. 2004. Insecticidal components from field pea extracts: Isolation and separation of peptide mixtures related to pea albumin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:74917498.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A. 1996. Utilization of allelopathy for weed management in agroecosystems. Agron. J. 88:860866.Google Scholar
Willis, R. J. 1985. The historical bases of the concept of allelopathy. J. Hist. Biol. 18:71102.Google Scholar