Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:50:37.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of density and spatial pattern of winter wheat on suppression of different weed species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jannie Olsen ,
Lars Kristensen  and
Jacob Weiner
Jannie Olsen
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Lars Kristensen
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments on suppression of three species (scentless chamomile, field poppy, and canola) by winter wheat sown in two different spatial patterns (normal 12.8-cm rows and a uniform, grid-like pattern) and three densities (204, 449, and 721 plants m−2) in two growing seasons were performed. The effects of crop-sowing density and pattern when weeds were controlled by herbicide were also investigated in one season. Weed and crop biomass were measured when weed biomass was at its maximum (late June/early July), and grain was harvested in August. Weed biomass comprised on average 30% of the total (crop + weed) biomass in the first year and only 5% in the second year. Weed biomass decreased and grain yield increased with increasing sowing density. Weed biomass was on average 23% lower and grain yield 14% higher in the uniform pattern than in rows. Weed biomass decreased 27% and 38% in the row pattern and 36% and 50% in the uniform pattern by increasing sowing density from low to medium and from low to high density, respectively. When weeds were controlled with herbicide, increasing sowing density had no influence on grain yield, but grain yield was 7% higher in the uniform pattern. Field poppy was the weed with the largest biomass and the largest impact on yield, whereas canola had the lowest biomass and the least impact on yield.

Keywords

Field poppy, Papaver rhoeas L. PAPRHscentless chamomile, Matricaria perforata Mérat MATINcanola, Brassica napus L. ‘Karola’winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Terra’Crop–weed competitionsowing densityspatial uniformity

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 5 , October 2005 , pp. 690 - 694
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2004. Agroclimate at Taastrup (1961–2004). Copenhagen, Denmark: Department of Agricultural Science, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., Li, X., O'Donovan, T., and Harker, K. N. 1999. An integrated management approach to managing foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) in conservation tillage systems. Weed Technol 13:347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirujeda, A., Melander, B., Rasmussen, K., and Rasmussen, I. A. 2003. Relationship between speed, soil movement into the cereal row and intra-row weed control efficacy by weed harrowing. Weed Res 43:285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashem, A., Radosevich, S. R., and Roush, N. L. 1998. Effect of proximity factors on competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Sci 46:181–190.Google Scholar
Justice, G. G., Peeper, T. F., Solie, J. B., and Epplin, F. M. 1994. Net return from Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 8:317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, N. E. and Froud-Williams, R. J. 2002. Effects of winter wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological characteristics of naturally occurring weed flora. Weed Res 42:417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koscelny, J. A., Peeper, T. F., Solie, J. B., and Solomon, S. G. Jr. 1991. Seeding date, seeding rate, and row spacing affect wheat (Triticum aestivum) and cheat (Bromus secalinus). Weed Technol 5:707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B., Cirujeda, A., and Jørgensen, M. H. 2003. Effects of inter-row hoeing and fertilizer placement on weed growth and yield of winter wheat. Weed Res 43:428–438.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 231–269 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, J., Kristensen, L., Weiner, J., and Griepentrog, H. W. 2005. Increased density and spatial uniformity increase weed suppression by spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Res 45:316–321.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 1998. Ukrudtsharvning i vinterhvede (Weed harrowing in winter wheat. With English summary). Pages 179–189 in Proceedings of the 15th Danish Plant Protection Conference and Weeds. Nyborg, Denmark. Tjele, Denmark: Danmarks Jordbrugs forskning.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Solie, J. B., Solomon, S. G., Self, K. P., Peeper, T. F., and Koscelny, J. A. 1991. Reduced row spacing for improved wheat yields in weed-free and weed-infested fields. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 34:1654–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teich, A. H., Smid, A., Welacky, T., and Hamil, A. 1993. Row-spacing and seed-rate effects on winter wheat in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Vorst, P. B., Wicks, G. A., and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Weed control in a winter wheat-corn-ecofarming rotation. Agron. J 75:507–511.Google Scholar
Weiner, J., Griepentrog, H-W., and Kristensen, L. 2001. Suppression of weeds by spring wheat Triticum aestivum increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. J. Appl. Ecol 38:784–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar