Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:00:16.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of volunteer barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) interference on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) yield and profitability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John T. O'Donovan  and
Robert E. Blackshaw
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Station, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relationships between volunteer barley plant density and both pea and volunteer barley yield were determined in field experiments conducted over 2 yr at Vegreville and Lethbridge, Alberta. Nonlinear regression analysis indicated that severe pea yield losses due to volunteer barley occurred at both locations. Averaged over both years, pea seed yield losses per volunteer barley plant (initial slopes) varied from 1.7% at Vegreville to 5.4% at Lethbridge. Based on certain assumptions, economic thresholds calculated from the equations were approximately 2 and 6 volunteer barley plants m−2 at Lethbridge and Vegreville, respectively. Revenue from the volunteer barley seed partially alleviated the monetary losses caused by the reduced pea seed yield. The effects of pea density on pea and volunteer barley yield were inconsistent and marginal. This suggested that there was little advantage, in terms of increasing pea yield or reducing volunteer barley interference, to seeding pea above the recommended rate of 100 plants m−2.

Keywords

Volunteer barley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Galt’ HORVXPea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Radley’Volunteer barleypea seeding ratenonlinear regressioneconomic thresholdHORVX
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 249 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Barton, D. L., Thill, D. C., and Bahman, S. 1992. Integrated wild oat (Avena fatua) management affects spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) yield and economics. Weed Technol. 6: 129–135.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1993. Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) density and row spacing effects on competition with green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 41: 403–408.Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1985. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition in spring wheat: plant density effects. Weed Sci. 33: 176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, P.N.P., O'Sullivan, P. A., Hunter, J. H., and Kirkland, K. J. 1983. Control of barley and wheat in canola with BAS 9052. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63: 1099–1102.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985a. An empirical equation relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other equations. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 105: 513–521.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985b. A simple equation relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1990. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5: 664–673.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., Holt, J. S., and Reints, J. S. 1989. Competitive interactions of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and wild oats (Avena fatua) grown at different densities. Weed Sci. 37: 538–543.Google Scholar
Evans, R. M., Thill, D. C., Thapia, L. S., Shafii, B., and Lish, J. M. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) density affect spring barley grain yield. Weed Technol. 5: 33–39.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1985. Crop losses in wheat (Triticum aestivum) as determined using weeded and non-weeded quadrats. Weed Sci. 33: 734–740.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A., ed. 1977. Theory of Econometrics. 2nd ed. London: MacMillan Education, pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M. and Topham, P. B. 1982. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the weeds. Weed Res. 25: 221–229.Google Scholar
Marra, M. C. and Carlson, G. A. 1983. An economic threshold equation of weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31: 604–609.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10: 224–229.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. 1994. Canola (Brassica rapa) plant density influences Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) interference, biomass and seed yield. Weed Sci. 42: 385–389.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Kirkland, K. J., and Sharma, A. K. 1989. Canola yield and profitability as influenced by volunteer wheat infestations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69: 1235–1244.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, A. K., Kirkland, K. J., and de St. Remy, E. A. 1987. The effect of volunteer barley on the yield and profitability of rapeseed in western Canada. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 3: 1035–1041.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, A. K., Kirkland, K. J., and de St. Remy, E. A. 1988. Volunteer barley (Hordeum vulgare) interference in canola (Brassica campestris and B. napus). Weed Sci. 36: 734–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, D. E. 1972. Intercropping between Agropyron repens and peas. Weed Res. 12: 107–111.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Combellak, G. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29: 117–126.Google Scholar
Townley-Smith, L. and Wright, A. T. 1994. Field pea cultivar and weed response to crop seed rate in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74: 387–393.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Friesen, G. H., and Bhatti, T. K. 1991. Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless field peas. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 473–480.Google Scholar