Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:09:44.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of wild oat (Avena fatua) relative time of emergence and density on cultivated oat yield, wild oat seed production, and wild oat contamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christian J. Willenborg ,
William E. May ,
Robert H. Gulden ,
Guy P. Lafond  and
Steven J. Shirtliffe
Christian J. Willenborg
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
William E. May
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Indian Head Research Farm, P.O. Box 760, Indian Head, SK S0G 2K0, Canada
Robert H. Gulden
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, 50, Stone Road W., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Guy P. Lafond
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Indian Head Research Farm, P.O. Box 760, Indian Head, SK S0G 2K0, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild oat is a serious weed in cultivated oat because there are no herbicides to selectively control it. Considering the effect of time of emergence on weed–crop interference is critical for the development of accurate crop yield loss models and weed density thresholds. Therefore, field experiments were conducted at two locations in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2002 and 2003 to determine the effect of wild oat density and time of emergence on cultivated oat yield and quality. Wild oat was planted at 50 growing degree day (GDD) intervals ranging from 100 GDD before to 100 GDD after crop planting. Wild oat density ranged from 0 to 320 plants m−2. High densities of early emerging wild oat greatly reduced cultivated oat yield and increased wild oat contamination, with observed oat yield losses as great as 70% and wild oat contamination levels of 15%. Wild oat that emerged before cultivated oat caused considerably more yield and quality loss and had higher reproductive output than wild oat that emerged after cultivated oat. The yield loss caused by individual wild oat plants at low densities (parameter I) ranged from 0.40 to 0.49%. The effect of relative time of wild oat emergence (parameter C) always varied significantly between site-years. However, little variation in absolute values within site-years was observed for cultivated oat yield loss, wild oat seed production, and wild oat contamination, suggesting that relative time of wild oat emergence influences all similarly. The results of this study emphasize both the need to control early emerging wild oat, as well as the importance of time of emergence in the prediction of crop yield loss. Furthermore, our approach of conducting an emergence study based on thermal time is novel and demonstrates a robust, mechanistic method of estimating crop yield losses due to relative time of emergence.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAoat, Avena sativa L. ‘AC Assiniboia’Competitioninterferencetime of emergenceweed densityyield loss
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , June 2005 , pp. 342 - 352
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

Acton, D. F., Padbury, G. A., and Stushnoff, C. T. 1998. The Ecoregions of Saskatchewan. Winnipeg, MB: Hignell. Pp. 125–156.Google Scholar
Bell, A. R. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1968. Competition of wild oat in wheat and barley. Weed Sci 16:509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1985. Wild oat (Avena fatua L.) competition with spring wheat: plant density effects. Weed Sci 33:176–181.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1976. Seed Behavior. Pages 65–98 in Price Jones, D. ed. Wild oat in World Agriculture. London, UK: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Chang, J. 1968. Climate and Agriculture: An Ecological Survey. Chicago, IL: Aldine. 290 p.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci 35:720–725.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Environment Canada. 2004. Canadian Climate Normals 1971 to 2000. www.mscsmc.ec.gc.ca/climate/climate_normals/show_normals_e.cfm?station_id=1473prov=SK.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT. 2004. Data Collections-Agricultural Production. http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections?subset=agriculture.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., and Anderson, R. L. et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum–Aegilops cylindrica interference relationships. Weed Sci 47:529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juskiw, P. E. and Helm, J. H. 2003. Barley response to seeding date in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant. Sci 83:275–281.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth and yield as influenced by duration of wild oat (Avena fatua) competition. Weed Technol 7:890–893.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L). Weed Sci 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Comparison of empirical models depicting density of Amaranthus retroflexus L. and relative leaf area as predictors of yield loss in maize (Zea mays L). Weed Res 35:207–214.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometric Methods. London: MacMillan. Pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C. J. T. 1991. A simple model of crop yield loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res 31:97–105.Google Scholar
Lafond, G. P. and Baker, R. J. 1986. Effects of temperature, moisture stress, and seed size on germination of nine spring wheat cultivars. Crop Sci 26:563–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Andrews, T., Brown, K., and Van Acker, R. C. 2002a. 2002 Manitoba Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed, and Pulse Crops. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Series Publ. 02-2. 141 p.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Brenzil, C. 2003. 2003 Saskatchewan Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed, and Pulse Crops. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Series Publ. 03-1. 342 p.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Hall, L. M. 2002b. 2001 Alberta Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed, and Pulse Crops. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Series Publ. 02-1. 263 p.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)–velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Manitoba Agriculture. 2002. Pest Management—Weeds—Wild oat. www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/weeds/fab19s00.html.Google Scholar
Martin, M. P. L. D. and Field, R. J. 1988. Influence of time of emergence of wild oat on competition with wheat. Weed Res 28:111–116.Google Scholar
Martin, R. J., Cullis, B. R., and McNamara, D. W. 1987. Prediction of wheat yield loss due to competition by wild oats (Avena spp). Aust. J. Agric. Res 38:487–499.Google Scholar
May, W. E., Mohr, R. M., Lafond, G. P., Johnston, A. M., and Stevenson, F. C. 2004. Early seeding dates improve oat yield and quality in the eastern prairies. Can. J. Plant Sci 84:431–442.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 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 33:498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technol 14:624–629.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Newman, J. C., Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and McAndrew, D. W. 1999. Effect of barley plant density on wild oat interference, shoot biomass, and seed yield under zero tillage. Can. J. Plant Sci 79:655–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, N. C. B. and Wilson, B. J. 1983. Some studies on the competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. II. Variation of A. fatua emergence and development and its influence on crop yield. Weed Res 23:305–311.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 135–154.Google Scholar
Rolston, M. P. 1981. Wild oat in New Zealand: a review. N. Z. J. Exp. Agric 9:115–121.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food, and Rural Revitalization. 2004. 2003 Saskatchewan Crop District Crop Production. www.agr.gov.sk.ca/docs/statistics/crops/production/SkCrpDistrict03.pdf.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Pierce, F. J. 2002. Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences. New York: CRC. Pp. 183–298.Google Scholar
Seavers, G. P. and Wright, K. J. 1999. Crop canopy development and structure influence weed suppression. Weed Res 39:319–328.Google Scholar
Sharma, M. P., McBeath, D. K., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1976. Studies of on the biology of wild oat. 1. Dormancy, germination, and emergence. Can. J. Plant Sci 56:611–618.Google Scholar
Sharma, M. P. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds—Avena fatua . Can. J. Plant. Sci 58:141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirtliffe, S. J., Entz, M. H., and Van Acker, R. C. 2000. Avena fatua development and seed shatter as related to thermal time. Weed Sci 48:555–560.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2004. Census of Agriculture—Historical Data. www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/econ126a.html.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. 2003. Correlations among relative crop and weed growth stages. Weed Sci 51:163–170.Google Scholar
Wildeman, J. C. 2004. The Effect of Oat (Avena sativa L.) Genotype and Seeding Rate on Wild Oat (Avena fatua L.) Competition. . University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 103 p.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res 14:415–421.Google Scholar