Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:50:29.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecology and Control of Russian Thistle (Salsola iberica) After Spring Wheat Harvest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William F. Schillinger
William F. Schillinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Dryland Research Station, P.O. Box B, Lind, WA 99341
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Russian thistle is the most problematic broadleaf weed for spring-sown crops in the low-precipitation (< 340 mm yr−1) region of the inland Pacific Northwest of the United States. A 6-yr field experiment was conducted at Lind, WA, to evaluate three postharvest control strategies for Russian thistle in continuous annual spring wheat. Postharvest treatments were (1) tillage with low-disturbance overlapping undercutter V-blade sweeps; (2) paraquat + diuron at the labeled rate, which is widely used by farmers; and (3) an untreated check (letting Russian thistle grow unhindered). The undercutter V-sweep consistently killed all Russian thistle with essentially no residue burial, and no seed was produced. In contrast, the paraquat + diuron treatment halted Russian thistle dry biomass production, but plants continued to extract soil water and produce an average of 310 seeds m−2 on the lower branches. In the check, Russian thistle produced an average of 700 kg ha−1 postharvest dry biomass and 5,670 seeds m−2. The undercutter V-sweep treatment had significantly more water in the 180-cm soil profile at time of wheat harvest, after a killing frost in October, and in mid March as well as greater spring wheat grain yield compared with the herbicide and check treatments. Results show that postharvest tillage with an undercutter V-sweep consistently achieved 100% control, retained ample wheat residue on the surface to control erosion, and was by far the most effective treatment in this experiment.

Keywords

DiuronparaquatRussian thistle Salsola iberica Sennen & Pau SASKAwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Annual croppingdroughtdryland spring wheatsoil water depletion
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 381 - 385
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

Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. Salsola kali L. Pages 708–721. in. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Hignett, C. and Evett, S. R. 2002. Methods for measurement of soil water content: neutron thermalization. Pages 501–521. in Dane, J.H., Top, G.C. eds. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical methods. SSSA Book Series 5. Madison, WI Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Large, E. C. 1954. Growth stages in cereals. Plant Pathol. 3:128–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leggett, G. E. 1959. Relationship between wheat yield, available moisture and available nitrogen in Eastern Washington dry land areas. 1–16. Washington Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin 609.Google Scholar
Nail, E. L., Young, D. L., Hinman, H. R., and Schillinger, W. F. 2005. Economic comparison of no-till annual crop rotations to winter wheat–summer fallow in Adams County, WA. Washington Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin EB1997E.Google Scholar
Pan, W. L., Young, F. L., and Bolton, R. P. 2001. Monitoring Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) root growth using a scanner-based, portable mesorhizotron. Weed Technol. 15:762–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papendick, R. I. and McCool, D. K. 1994. Residue management strategies: Pacific Northwest. Pages 1–14. in Hatfield, J.L., Stewart, B.A. eds. Crop Residue Management. Boca Raton, FL Lewis.Google Scholar
Schillinger, W. F. 2005. Tillage method and sowing rate relations for dryland spring wheat, barley, and oat. Crop Sci. 45:2636–2643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillinger, W. F., Kennedy, A. C., and Young, D. L. 2007. Eight years of annual no-till cropping in Washington's winter wheat—summer fallow region. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 120:345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillinger, W. F., Papendick, R. I., Guy, S. O., Rasmussen, P. E., and van Kessel, C. 2006. Dryland cropping in the western United States. Pages 365–393. in Peterson, G.A., Unger, P.W., Payne, W.A. eds. Dryland Agriculture, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 23. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy, Crops Science Society of America, and Soils Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Schillinger, W. F., Papendick, R. I., Veseth, R. J., and Young, F. L. 1999. Russian thistle skeletons provide residue in wheat-fallow cropping systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54:506–509.Google Scholar
Schillinger, W. F. and Young, F. L. 2000. Soil water use and growth of Russian thistle after wheat harvest. Agron. J. 92:167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stallings, G. P., Thill, D. C., Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Lass, L. W. 1995. Plant movement and seed dispersal of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Weed Sci. 43:63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Top, G. C. and Ferre, P. A. 2002. Methods for measurement of soil water content: thermogravimetric using convective oven-drying. Pages 422–424. in Dane, J.H., Top, G.C. eds. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods. SSSA Book Series 5. Madison, WI Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Young, F. L. 1986. Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) growth and development in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 34:901–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L. 1988. Effect of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) interference on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 36:594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L. and Thorne, M. E. 2004. Weed-species dynamics and management in no-till and reduced-till fallow cropping systems for the semi-arid agricultural region of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Crop Prot. 23:1097–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar