Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:16:59.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining Cultural Practices with Herbicides Reduces Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Seed in the Soil Seed Bank and Improves Barley Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John T. O'Donovan ,
K. Neil Harker ,
T. Kelly Turkington  and
George W. Clayton
John T. O'Donovan*
Affiliation:
Lacombe Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB Canada T4L 1W1
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Lacombe Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB Canada T4L 1W1
T. Kelly Turkington
Affiliation:
Lacombe Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB Canada T4L 1W1
George W. Clayton
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Centre, Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB Canada, T1J 4B1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was initiated in 2001at four locations in western Canada to investigate an integrated approach to managing wild oat, the region's worst weed. The study examined the effects of combining semidwarf or tall barley cultivars with normal or twice-normal barley seeding rates in either continuous barley or a barley–canola–barley–field pea–barley rotation. Herbicides were applied at 25, 50, and 100% of recommended rates. The first phase of the study was completed in 2005. This paper reports on the second phase, which was continued for four more years at two of the locations, Beaverlodge and Fort Vermilion, AB, Canada. The objective was to determine the long-term impact of the treatments on wild oat seed in the soil seed bank. In 2009 (final year), the diverse rotation combined with the higher barley seeding rate (optimal cultural practice) resulted in higher barley yields and reduced wild oat biomass compared to continuous barley and lower barley seeding rate (suboptimal cultural practice). In contrast to the first phase, barley yield was higher with the semidwarf cultivar, and cultivar had no effect on wild oat management. Wild oat seed in the soil seed bank decreased with increasing herbicide rate, but amounts were often lower with the optimal cultural practice. For example, at the recommended herbicide rate at Beaverlodge, an approximate 40-fold reduction in wild oat seed occurred with the optimal compared to the suboptimal cultural practice. The results indicate that combining optimal cultural practices with herbicides will reduce the amount of wild oat seed in the soil seed bank, and result in higher barley yields. Optimal cultural practices may also compensate for reduced herbicidal effects in terms of reducing wild oat seed accumulation in the soil seed bank and increasing barley yield. The results have implications for mitigating the evolution of herbicide resistance in wild oat.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L.barley, Hordeum vulgare L.canola, Brassica napus L.field pea, Pisum sativum LCrop seeding ratecultural practicesdirect seedingdiverse rotationherbicide resistanceintegrated weed management (IWM)optimal cultural practicessoil seed bank
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 328 - 333
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

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2012. Technical Bulletin: Vivar Barley. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/fcd5408. Accessed: October 11, 2012.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 2003. An ecological approach to strengthen weed management in the semiarid Great Plains. Adv. Agron. 80: 33–62.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agron. J. 97: 1579–1583.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol. 20: 793–814.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. and Kirkland, K. J. 2003. Implication of reduced herbicide rates on resistance enrichment in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Technol. 17: 138–148.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Brenzil, C. A., Hall, L. M., Holzgang, G., Lozinski, C., and Shirriff, S. 2008. Weed resistance monitoring in the Canadian Prairies. Weed Technol. 22: 530–543.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2005. Integration of agronomic practices and herbicides for sustainable weed management in a zero-till barley field pea rotation. Weed Technol. 19: 190–196.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83: 433–440.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Beckie, H. J., Mallory-Smith, C., and Maxwell, B. D. 2012. Our view. Weed Sci. 60: 143–144.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Irvine, R. B., Turkington, T. K., and Clayton, G. W. 2009. Integrating cropping systems with cultural techniques augments wild oat (Avena fatua) management in barley. Weed Sci. 57: 326–337.Google Scholar
Heap, I. N. 2012. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed October 13, 2012.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brule-Babel, A., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 176–193.Google Scholar
Juliano, L. M., Casimero, M. C., and Llewellyn, R. 2010. Multiple herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-gali) in direct-seeded rice in the Phillipines. Int. J. Pest Manag. 56: 299–307.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and O'Donovan, J. 2006. Economic impact of alien weeds on wheat, barley and canola production. Page 90 in Proceedings of the Canadian Weed Science Society. Victoria, BC: Canadian Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary NC: SAS Institute. 656 p.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Moyer, J. R., Dosdall, L. M., Maurice, D. C., and Turkington, T. K. 2007. Integrated approaches to managing weeds in spring-sown crops in western Canada. Crop Prot. 26: 390–398.Google 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., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Newman, J. C., Robinson, D., and Hall, L. M. 2001. Barley seeding rate influences the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci. 49: 746–754.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.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Newman, J. C., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2004. Crop seeding rate influences the performance of variable herbicide rates in a canola/barley/canola rotation. Weed Technol. 18: 733–741.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Harker, K. N., Maurice, D., Baig, M., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Wild oat (Avena fatua) populations resistant to triallate are also resistant to difenzoquat. Weed Sci. 42: 195–199.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Matthews, J. M. 1991. Herbicide resistance in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum): a driving force for the adoption of integrated weed management. Pages 75–86 in Denholm, I., and Hollomon, W., eds. Resistance '91, Achievements and Developments in Combatting Pesticide Resistance. Barking, Essex, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd., Crown House.Google Scholar
SAS. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 User's Guide. Cary NC: SAS Institute. 4420 p.Google Scholar
Thill, D. C., O'Donovan, J. T., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 1994. Integrated weed management strategies for delaying herbicide resistance. Phytoprotection 75(Suppl.): 61–70.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereals and oilseed crops. Weed Sci. 33: 34–43.Google Scholar
Turkington, T. K., Xi, K., Clayton, G. W., Burnett, P. A., Klein-Gebbinck, H., Lupwayi, N. Z., Harker, K. N., and O'Donovan, J. T. 2006. Impact of crop management on leaf diseases in Alberta barley fields, 1995–1997. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 28: 441–449.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. T., Powles, S. B., Beard, B. R., Parkin, B. T., and Porter, S. A. 2004. Multiple herbicide resistance across four modes of action in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci. 52: 8–13.Google Scholar
Watson, P. R., Derksen, D. A., and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. The ability of 29 barley cultivars to compete and withstand competition. Weed Sci. 54: 783–792.Google Scholar