Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:43:43.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Pea and Lentil Tolerance to Interrow Cultivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2017

Katherine A. Stanley ,
Steven J. Shirtliffe ,
Dilshan Benaragama ,
Lena D. Syrovy  and
Hema S. N. Duddu
Katherine A. Stanley
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Steven J. Shirtliffe*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Dilshan Benaragama
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Lena D. Syrovy
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Hema S. N. Duddu
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Student, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Steven J. Shirtliffe, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada. (E-mail: steve.shirtliffe@usask.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interrow cultivation is a selective, in-crop mechanical weed control tool that has the potential to control weeds later in the growing season with less crop damage compared with other in-crop mechanical weed control tools. To our knowledge, no previous research has been conducted on the tolerance of narrow-row crops to interrow cultivation. The objective of this experiment was to determine the tolerance of field pea and lentil to interrow cultivation. Replicated field experiments were conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2014 and 2015. Weekly cultivation treatments began at the 4-node stage of each crop, continuing for 6 wk. Field pea and lentil yield linearly declined with later crop stages of cultivation. Cultivating multiple times throughout the growing season reduced yield by 15% to 30% in both crops. Minimal yield loss occurred when interrow cultivation was conducted once at early growth stages of field pea and lentil; however, yield loss increased with delayed and more frequent cultivation events.

Keywords

Prashant Jha, Montana State UniversityField pea, Pisum sativum L.lentil, Lens culinaris L.In-crop mechanical weed controlmechanical weed controlpostemergentpulsestoleranceweed control
Type
Weed Management-Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 205 - 210
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Baird, JM, Shirtliffe, SJ Walley, FL (2009a) Optimal seeding rate for organic production of lentil in the Northern Great Plains. Can J Plant Sci 89:1089–1097 Google Scholar
Baird, JM, Walley, FL Shirtliffe, SJ (2009b) Optimal seeding rate for organic production of field pea in the Northern Great Plains. Can J Plant Sci 89:455–464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, DA, Ogg, AG Jr Chevalier, PM (1997) The influence of seeding rate on weed control in small-red lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Sci 45:296–300 Google Scholar
Bond, W Grundy, AC (2001) Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383–405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, G (2002) Steel in the Field: A Farmer’s Guide to Weed Management Tools. College Park, MD: SARE. P 128 Google Scholar
Dastgheib, F (2004) Optimising tine weeding in organic pea crops. New Zeal Plant Prot 57:45–48 Google Scholar
Davies, DH Welsh, J (2002) Weed control in organic cereals and pulses. Pages 77–114 in Younie D, Taylor B, Welsh J and Wilkinson J, eds. Organic Cereals and Pulses. Shedfield, UK: Chalcombe Publications Google Scholar
Fedoruk, LK, Johnson, EN Shirtliffe, SJ (2011) The critical period of weed control for lentil in Western Canada. Weed Sci 59:517–526 Google Scholar
Forcella, F (2000) Rotary hoeing substitutes for two-thirds rate of soil-applied herbicide. Weed Technol 14:298–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonsulus, JL (1990) Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am J Alternative Agr 5:114–119 Google Scholar
Hanna, M, Hartzler, R, Erbach, D, Paarlberg, K Miller, L (1996) Cultivation: An Effective Weed Management Tool. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension Publication PM-1623Google Scholar
Harker, KN, Blackshaw, RE Clayton, GW (2001) Timing weed removal in field pea (Pisum sativum). Weed Technol 15:277–283 Google Scholar
Johnson, EN (2001) Mechanical Weed Control in Field Pea. MSc dissertation. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: University of Saskatchewan Google Scholar
Kolb, LN Gallandt, ER (2012) Weed management in organic cereals: advances and opportunities. Org Agric 2:23–42 Google Scholar
Kolb, LN, Gallandt, ER Mallory, EB (2012) Impact of spring wheat planting density, row spacing, and mechanical weed control on yield, grain protein, and economic return in Maine. Weed Sci 6:244–253 Google Scholar
Kolb, LN, Gallandt, ER Molloy, T (2010) Improving weed management in organic spring barley: physical weed control vs interspecific competition. Weed Res 50:597–605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurstjens, DA Perdok, U (2000) The selective soil covering mechanism of weed harrows on sandy soil. Soil Tillage Res 55:193–206 Google Scholar
Lancashire, PD, Bleiholder, H, Van Den Boom, T, Langeluddeke, P, Stauss, R, Weber, E Witzenberger, A (1991) A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Ann Appl Biol 119:561–601 Google Scholar
Leblanc, ML Cloutier, DC (2001a) Susceptibility of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, cranberry bean) to the rotary hoe. Weed Technol 15:224–228 Google Scholar
Leblanc, ML Cloutier, DC (2001b) Susceptibility of row-planted soybean (Glycine max) to the rotary hoe. J Sustain Agric 18:53–61 Google Scholar
Leblanc, ML, Cloutier, DC, Stewart, KA Ummary, SA (2006) Rotary hoe cultivation in sweet corn. HortTechnology 16:583–589 Google Scholar
Lötjönen, T Mikkola, H (2000) Three mechanical weed control techniques in spring cereals. Agric Food Sci Finl 9:269–278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B, Cirujeda, A Jorgensen, MH (2003) Effects of inter-row hoeing and fertilizer placement on weed growth and yield of winter wheat. Weed Res 43:428–438 Google Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, IA Bàrberi, P (2005) Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control—examples from European research. Weed Sci 53:369–381 Google Scholar
Menalled, F (2009) Integrated Weed Management in Lentils. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension MontGuide MT201009AGGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:75–84 Google Scholar
Pullen, DWM Cowell, PA (1997) An evaluation of the performance of mechanical weeding mechanisms for use in high speed inter-row weeding of arable crops. J Agric Eng Res 67:27–34 Google Scholar
Rasmussen, IA (2004) A model for prediction of yield response in weed harrowing. Weed Res 31:401–408 Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J, Kurtzmann, JI Jensen, A (2004) Tolerance of competitive spring barley cultivars to weed harrowing. Weed Res 44:446–452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J, Nielsen, HH Gundersen, H (2009) Tolerance and selectivity of cereal species and cultivars to postemergence weed harrowing. Weed Sci 5:338–345 Google Scholar
Rueda-Ayala, V, Rasmussen, J Gerhards, R (2010) Mechanical weed control. Pages 279–294 in Oerk E-C, Gerhards R, Menz G and Sikora RA, eds. Precision Crop Protection—The Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Google Scholar
Rueda-Ayala, VP, Rasmussen, J, Gerhards, R Fournaise, NE (2011) The influence of post-emergence weed harrowing on selectivity, crop recovery and crop yield in different growth stages of winter wheat. Weed Res 51:478–488 Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2012) SAS/STAT User’s Guide 9.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Shirtliffe, SJ Johnson, EN (2012) Progress towards no-till organic weed control in western Canada. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:60–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimon, J Škrdleta, V (1983) Biomass production in peas (Pisum sativum L.) and broad beans (Vicia faba L.) and symbiotic dinitrogen fixation as affected by ploughing or no-tillage and nitrogen fertilizer. Soil Tillage Res 3:367–375 Google Scholar
Swanton, CJ Weise, SF (1991) Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663 Google Scholar
Terpstra, R Kouwenhoven, JK (1981) Inter-row and intra-row weed control with a hoe-ridger. J Agric Eng Res 26:127–134 Google Scholar
Townley-Smith, L Wright, AT (1994) Field pea cultivar and weed response to crop seed rate in western Canada. Can J Plant Sci 74:387–393 Google Scholar
Wiltshire, JJJ, Tillett, ND Hague, T (2003) Agronomic evaluation of precise mechanical hoeing and chemical weed control in sugar beet. Weed Res 43:236–244 Google Scholar