Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:51:11.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rotation Affects Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw
Robert E. Blackshaw*
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada Res. Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Downy brome control in winter wheat is often inadequate. The effects of three crop rotations and two tillage intensities on downy brome populations and associated crop yields were determined in an experiment at Lethbridge, Alberta from 1987 to 1993. Downy brome densities in continuous winter wheat increased from 24 to 970 plants/m2 between 1988 and 1993; and were often higher with zero tillage. Inclusion of fallow or spring canola in rotation with winter wheat suppressed downy brome densities to less than 55 and 100 plants/m2, respectively, over the six years. In continuous winter wheat, yields decreased as downy brome densities increased progressively over years, indicating that monoculture winter wheat production will not be viable in regions where downy brome is prevalent unless effective herbicides are developed. In the more arid areas of the Canadian prairies, a winter wheat-fallow rotation may be most suitable but in higher precipitation areas, a winter wheat-canola rotation is a viable alternative. Crop rotation is a key component of an improved management system for control of downy brome.

Keywords

Downy brome, Bromus tectorum L. ♯ BROTEcanola, Brassica rapa L. ‘Tobin’winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Norstar.’Downy brome densitycanola yieldintegrated weed managementwheat yieldzero tillageBROTE
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 728 - 732
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Alberta Agriculture. 1993. Crop protection with chemicals. Agdex 606-1, Alberta Agric., Edmonton, Alberta. p. 31–158.Google Scholar
2. Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40:654–659.Google Scholar
3. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in conservation fallow systems. Weed Technol. 5:557–562.Google Scholar
4. Blackshaw, R. E. 1993. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) density and relative time of emergence affects interference in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 41:551–556.Google Scholar
5. Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8:231–237.Google Scholar
6. Dao, T. H. 1987. Crop residues and management of annual grass weeds in continuous no-till wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35:395–400.Google Scholar
7. Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., and Derksen, D. A. 1990. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) invasion into southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70:1143–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Froud-Williams, R. J. 1988. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. p. 213–236 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
9. Hosaka, H., Inaba, H., and Ishikawa, H. 1984. Response of monocotyledons to BAS 9052 OH. Weed Sci. 32:28–32.Google Scholar
10. Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., Izaurralde, R. C., and Moulin, A. P. 1994. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation on the Canadian prairie. p. 305–328 in Carter, M. R., ed. Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
11. Ogg, A. G. 1993. Control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and volunteer wheat (Triticum aestivum) in fallow with tillage and pronamide. Weed Technol. 7:686–692.Google Scholar
12. Roberts, H. A. and Neilson, J. E. 1981. Changes in the soil seed bank of four long-term crop/herbicide experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 18:661–668.Google Scholar
13. Rydrych, D. J. and Muzik, T. J. 1968. Downy brome competition and control in dryland wheat. Agron. J. 60:279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Stahlman, P. W. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) interference and economic thresholds in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 38:224–228.Google Scholar
15. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. p. 173–177 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
16. Thill, D. C., Beck, K. G., and Callihan, R. H. 1984. The biology of downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 32, Suppl. 1:7–12.Google Scholar
17. Upadhyaya, M. K., Turkington, R., and McIlvride, D. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds. 75. Bromus tectorum L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66:689–709.Google Scholar
18. Walker, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Crop manipulation in integrated weed management systems. Weed Sci. 30, Suppl. 1:17–24.Google Scholar
19. Wicks, G. A. 1984. Integrated systems for control and management of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in cropland. Weed Sci. 32, Suppl. 1:26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar