Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:13:41.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of seeding rate on weed control in small-red lentil (Lens culinaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel A. Ball ,
Alex G. Ogg Jr.  and
Peggy M. Chevalier
Alex G. Ogg Jr.
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Peggy M. Chevalier
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences Department, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted at two sites for 2 yr in the Pacific Northwest dryland cropping region to determine if seeding rate of small-red lentil could enhance weed control with herbicides and increase lentil seed yield. At Pendleton, OR, and LaCrosse, WA, lentil was planted at 22 or 44 kg ha−1 in one direction in all plots. In one-half of the plots, lentil was cross-seeded at right angles with an additional 22 kg ha−1 to provide seeding rates of 22, 44, 22 + 22, and 44 + 22 kg ha−1. Seeding rate main plots were split into three herbicide treatments and an untreated control. Total weed density was reduced by increasing seeding rate at Pendleton both years when averaged over all herbicide treatments. Seeding rate reduced total weed density to a greater extent when herbicides did not adequately control weeds or when herbicides were not applied at Pendleton in 1992. Increased seeding rate also reduced total weed dry weight at Pendleton in 1992 and 1993 and at LaCrosse in 1993. The suppressive effect of increased seeding rate on weed dry weight was more evident when herbicides were not used or when herbicides gave only partial control. Herbicides generally reduced weed density, but the effectiveness of individual treatments was related to the weed species present and environmental conditions present in each experiment. Lentil aboveground dry weight production increased with seeding rate at both locations; however, only in 1 yr did lentil seed yield increase with seeding rate. The primary benefit from increased seeding rate in this study was to reduce weed density and dry weight.

Keywords

Cutleaf nightshade, Solanum triflorum (Nutt.) SOLTRwitchgrass, Panicum capillare (L.) PANCAprostrate knotweed, Polygonum aviculare (L.) POLAVRussian thistle, Salsola iberica SALIBlentil, Lens culinaris Medic., ‘Crimson.’Crop competitiondensity, cross-seedingSOLTRPANCAPOLAVSALIB
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 296 - 300
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

Anonymous. Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook. 1996. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 378 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Rotation affects downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 8: 728–732.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Young, F. L. 1995. Effect of postplant tillage and crop density on broadleaf weed control in dry pea (Pisum sativum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Technol. 9: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. P., Rasmussen, P. E., and Douglas, C. L. 1992. Crop rotation and residue management effects on soil carbon and microbial dynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56: 783–788.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. In Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 467–469.Google Scholar
Koscelny, J. A., Peeper, T. F., Solie, J. B., and Solomon, S. G. Jr. 1990. Effect of wheat row spacing, seeding rate, and cultivar on yield loss from cheat (Bromus secalinus). Weed Technol. 4: 487–492.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M. 1982. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the crop. Weed Res. 22: 27–38.Google Scholar
Lundquist, E. J., Chevalier, P. M., Ball, D. A., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1997. Cross-seeding vs. one-way planting of small-seeded lentil in low moisture environments. Agron. J. (in-press).Google Scholar
Malik, V., Swanton, C., and Michaels, T. 1989. Impact of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing and seeding rate on establishment and suppression of annual weeds. Annu. Rep. Bean. Improv. Coop. 32: 81–82.Google Scholar
McKenzie, B. A., Miller, M. E., and Hill, G. D. 1989. The relationship between lentil crop population and weed biomass production in Canterbury. Proc. Agron. Soc. NZ. 19: 11–16.Google Scholar
Muehlbauer, F. J. 1991. Registration of ‘Crimson’ lentil. Crop Sci. 31: 1094–1095.Google Scholar
Silim, S. N., Saxena, M. C., and Erskine, W. 1990. Seeding density and row spacing for lentil in rainfed Mediterranean environments. Agron. J. 82: 927–930.Google Scholar
Veseth, R. 1989. Small red lentil as a fallow substitute. in Veseth, R. and Wysocki, D., eds. PNW Conservation Tillage Handbook Series. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Chapter 8(10)1–3.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1994. Response of flax and lentil to seeding rates, depths and spring application of dinitroanaline herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74: 875–882.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Ramsel, R. E., Nordquist, P. T., Schmidt, J. W., and Challaiah, . 1986. Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agron. J. 78: 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. Wilson Jr., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28: 295–299.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S. 1993. Contribution of bean morphological characteristics to weed suppression. Agron. J. 85: 840–843.Google Scholar
Zentner, R. P., Brandt, S. A., and Campbell, C. A. 1996. Economics of monoculture cereal and mixed oilseed-cereal rotations in west-central Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76: 393–400.Google Scholar