Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:58:24.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tillage and weed management effects on weeds in barley–red clover cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Légère  and
Nathalie Samson
Nathalie Samson
Affiliation:
226, Chemin des Granites, Lac-Beauport, QC G0A 2C0, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main study objective was to measure the effects of tillage (moldboard plow, chisel plow, and no-till) and weed management (intensive, moderate, and minimum) on weeds and crops in a spring barley monoculture compared with a spring barley–red clover rotation. The study was initiated in 1987 and conducted at two sites. Residual effects of treatments were measured in a wheat test crop at the loam site in 1994 and at the clay site in 1995–1996. Weed seed bank densities ranged from less than 300 to nearly 30,000 seeds m−2 and plant densities from 30 to 6,000 plants m−2. Seven species were recorded on average per plot aboveground and 10 species per plot in the seed bank. Species number in the seed bank varied little with treatments compared with species numbers aboveground. Crop rotation and tillage had little effect on weed species diversity but affected relative species dominance. The presence and abundance of species was also influenced by their degree of tolerance to the herbicides used in each system. Annual dicots largely dominated in minimum weed management treatments. Their relative importance in each rotation varied with their level of susceptibility to the different postemergence herbicides. Perennials were not exclusively found in reduced tillage systems. The relationship between perennials and tillage was dependent on the response of perennating structures to the type and frequency of soil disturbance. For example, quackgrass dominated in chisel and moldboard plow systems where rhizomes would be frequently fragmented. Field horsetail, also a rhizomatous species, dominated in the monoculture/direct-seeded no-till treatment under minimum weed management. Its absence from the rotation was explained by the regular removal of aboveground biomass during the forage production year. Overall, weed response was regulated by agronomic factors but was largely determined by specific biological attributes and environmental conditions.

Keywords

Field horsetail, Equisetum arvense L. EQUARquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREbarley, Hordeum vulgare L. HORVXred clover, Trifolium pratense L. TRFPRwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Crop rotationconservation tillagecropping systemsno-tillweed communitiesweed diversityweed seed banks
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 881 - 885
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

Angers, D. A., Bissonnette, N., Légère, A., and Samson, N. 1993a. Microbial and biochemical changes induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production. Can. J. Soil Sci 73:39–50.Google Scholar
Angers, D. A., Samson, N., and Légère, A. 1993b. Early changes in water-stable aggregation induced by rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production. Can. J. Soil Sci 73:51–59.Google Scholar
Benoit, D. L., Légère, A., and Samson, N. 1996. Évolution des stocks semenciers en fonction de l'intensité du travail du sol et du désherbage, dans un assolement orge-trèfle rouge. Pages 277–281 in Xième Colloque International sur la Biologie des Mauvaises Herbes. Dijon, France. Paris, France: Association Française pour la Protection des Plantes.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the Central USA. Crop Sci 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Carter, M. R. and Kunelius, H. T. 1990. Adapting conservation tillage in cool, humid regions. J. Soil Water Conserv 45:454–456.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci 41:409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci 42:184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desforges, J. 1996. Impacts des systèmes de culture sur les communautés lombriciennes. . Université Laval, Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada. 96 p.Google Scholar
Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1994. Ecoregions of Canada. Scale 1:7,500,000. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. 1986. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. Pages 213–236 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1981. Potential changes in weed floras associated with reduced-tillage cultivation systems for cereal production in temperate regions. Weed Res 21:99–109.Google Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–79 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Bai, Y. 1999. Competitive attributes of oat (Avena sativa), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) are conserved in no-till cropping systems. Weed Sci 47:712–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Derksen, D. A. 2000. Is diversity a useful concept for weed management?. Pages 407–414 in XIième Colloque International sur la Biologie des Mauvaises Herbes. Dijon, France. Paris, France: Association Française pour la Protection des Plantes.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci 47:112–122.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Samson, N., Rioux, R., Angers, D. A., and Simard, R. R. 1997. Response of spring barley to crop rotation, conservation tillage, and weed management intensity. Agron. J 89:628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A., Schreiber, M. M., Hickman, M. V., and Samson, N. 1996. Residual weed populations: innocent bystanders or potential time bombs?. Pages 1261–1266 in Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark. Flakkebjerg, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Simard, M-J., Thomas, A. G., Pageau, D., Lajeunesse, J., Warwick, S. I., and Derksen, D. A. 2001a. Presence and persistence of volunteer canola in Canadian cropping systems. Pages 143–148 in Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Council Conference—Weeds 2001. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Stevenson, F. C. 2002. Residual effects of crop rotation and weed management on a wheat test crop and weeds. Weed Sci 50:101–111.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C., and Samson, N. 2001b. Tillage and weed management effects on forage production in a barley-red clover rotation. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:405–412.Google Scholar
Lemieux, C., Cloutier, D. C., and Leroux, G. D. 1993. Distribution and survival of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) rhizome buds. Weed Sci 41:600–606.Google Scholar
Pollard, F. and Cussans, G. W. 1976. The influence of tillage on the weed flora of four sites sown to successive crops of spring barley. Pages 1019–1028 in Proceedings of the 1976 British Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Rydberg, T. 1992. Ploughless tillage in Sweden. Results and experiences from 15 years of field trials. Soil Tillage Res 22:253–264.Google Scholar
Samson, N. 1995. Incidence de l'adoption des pratiques culturales de conservation sur la production céréalière de l'est du Québec. Rapport final. Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada: Entente auxiliaire Canada–Québec sur le développment des régions, Agriculture et Agro-alimentaire Canada, 147 p.Google Scholar
Samson, N., Légère, A., and Rioux, R. 1996. Chemical weed control options for zero-tillage spring barley. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Pageau, D., Lajeunesse, J., and Warwick, S. I. 2002. The frequency and persistence of canola (Brassica napus) volunteers in Québec cropping systems. Weed Technol 16:433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol 7:286–297.Google Scholar
Tabi, M., Tardif, L., Carrier, D., Laflamme, G., and Rompré, M. 1990. Inventaire des problèmes de dégradation des sols agricoles du Québec. Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada: Entente auxiliaire Canada–Québec sur le développement agroalimentaire. 71 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Légère, A., Watson, P. A., and Turnbull, G. T. 2004. A multi-study approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage system. Weed Sci 52:874–880.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. L. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol 7:699–705.Google Scholar
Tørrensen, K. S., Skuterud, R., Tandsaether, H. J., Bredesen, M., and Hagemo, M. B. 2003. Long-term experiments with reduced tillage in spring cereals. I. Effects on weed flora, weed seedbank and grain yield. Crop Prot 22:185–200.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Otto, S., Riello, L., and Borin, M. 1997. Ecological interpretation of weed flora dynamics under different tillage systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 66:177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar