Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:09:05.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Planting Date and Preplant Weed Management Influence Yield, Water Use, and Weed Seed Production in Herbicide-Free Forage Barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew W. Lenssen
Andrew W. Lenssen*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 1500 North Central Avenue, Sidney MT 59270
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: andy.lenssen@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the semiarid northern Great Plains, the adoption of zero tillage improves soil water conservation, allowing for increased crop intensification and diversification. Zero-tillage crop production relies heavily on herbicides for weed management, particularly the herbicide glyphosate, increasing selection pressure for herbicide-resistant weeds. Barley is well adapted to the northern Great Plains, and may be a suitable herbicide-free forage crop in zero-tillage systems. A 2-yr field study was conducted to determine if planting date influenced crop and weed biomass, water use (WU), and water-use efficiency (WUE) of barley and weed seed production in three preplant weed management systems: (1) conventional preplant tillage with a field cultivator (TILL); (2) zero tillage with preemergence glyphosate application (ZTPRE); and (3) zero tillage without preemergence glyphosate (ZT). None of the systems included an in-crop herbicide. Planting dates were mid-April (early), late May (mid), and mid-June (delayed). Early planting of ZT barley resulted in excellent forage yields (7,228 kg/ha), similar to those from TILL and ZTPRE. Early planting resulted in a small accumulation of weed biomass, averaging 76 kg/ha, and no weed seed production regardless of preplant weed management system. Early planting resulted in higher WU than delayed planting, averaging 289 and 221 mm, respectively, across management systems and years. The WUE of crop and total biomass did not differ among preplant weed management systems at harvest from the early planting date. Delayed planting resulted in decreased forage yield with high amounts of weed biomass and seed production, especially in ZT. A pre-emergence glyphosate application was not necessary for early-planted ZT forage barley. Early planting of herbicide-free barley for forage can be an excellent addition to northern Great Plains cropping systems as part of a multitactic approach for improved weed and water management.

Keywords

Glyphosatebarley, Hordeum vulgare L.Integrated weed managementintegrated crop managementzero tillageweed densitywater-use efficiency
Type
Weed Management — Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 486 - 492
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

Anderson, R. L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agron J. 97:1579–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L., Bowman, R. A., Nielsen, D. C., Vigil, M. F., Aiken, R. M., and Benjamin, J. G. 1999. Alternative crop rotations for the central Great Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 12:95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, P. M., Horsley, R. D., and Poland, W. W. 2004. Barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 96:677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, P. M., Martin, G. B., Caton, J. S., and Poland, W. W. 1998. Forage and nitrogen yield of barley–pea and oat–pea intercrops. Agron. J. 90:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entz, M. H., Bullied, W. J., and Katepwa-Mupondwa, F. 1995. Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. J. Prod. Agric. 8:521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Kirkland, K. J., Baron, V. S., and Clayton, G. W. 2003. Early-harvest barley (Hordeum vulgare) silage reduces wild oat (Avena fatua) densities under zero tillage. Weed Technol. 17:102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, J. L., Sauer, T. J., and Prueger, J. H. 2001. Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency: A review. Agron. J. 93:271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. Occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pestic. Sci. 51:235–243.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2008. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed January 21, 2008.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, J., Jackson, G., and Jones, C. 2003. Fertilizer guidelines for Montana crops. Montana State University Extension Publication No. EB 161.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Shaner, D. L., Henry, W. B., Nadler-Hassar, T., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Assessment of two nondestructive assays for detecting glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 53:559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenssen, A., Johnson, G., and Carlson, G. 2007. Cropping sequence and tillage system influences annual crop production and water use in semiarid Montana, USA. Field Crops Res. 100:32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. and Retzinger, E. J. Jr. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 17:605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCartney, D., Townley-Smith, L., Vaage, A., and Pearen, J. 2004. Cropping systems for annual forage production in northeast Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazarko, O. M., van Acker, R. C., Entz, M. H., Schoofs, A., and Martens, G. 2003. Pesticide free production of field crops: Results of an on-farm pilot project. Agron. J. 95:1262–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazarko, O. M., van Acker, R. C., and Entz, M. H. 2005. Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: A review. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, L. C. 1948. Hay, fodder, and silage crops. Pages 497–502. in Stefferud, A., editor. Grass. USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Oerke, E. C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 144:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, G. J. and Connor, D. J. 1997. Stubble retention and tillage in a semi-arid environment: 3. Response of wheat. Field Crops Res. 54:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2003. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Schoofs, A. and Entz, M. H. 2000. Influence of annual forages on weed dynamics in a cropping system. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Management Sci. 56:320–326.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar