Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:06:10.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ongoing Development of Integrated Weed Management Systems on the Canadian Prairies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw ,
K. Neil Harker ,
John T. O'Donovan ,
Hugh J. Beckie  and
E. G. Smith
Robert E. Blackshaw*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 5401 1st Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
John T. O'Donovan
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, AB, Canada T4L 1W1
Hugh J. Beckie
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
E. G. Smith
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 5401 1st Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides are very effective tools to control weeds but there has been an overreliance on their use at the expense of other useful methods of weed management. Farmers are interested in alternative methods of weed management but are concerned about the risk of adopting such practices with current small profit margins. Research on the Canadian Prairies has found that cropping systems that utilize zero tillage, diverse crop rotations, competitive cultivars, higher crop seed rates, specific fertilizer management, and cover crops can effectively manage weed populations, especially when used in conjunction with targeted but limited use of herbicides. Farmers are gaining confidence in the merits of such agronomic practices in terms of sustainable weed management and are gradually adopting these integrated cropping systems on their farms. Further research and extension efforts are required to ensure that these integrated weed management systems are biologically and economically robust to facilitate greater adoption at the farm level.

Keywords

Competitive cultivarscover cropscrop rotationcrop seed ratefertilizer placementIWM adoptionsilage cropszero tillage
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 146 - 150
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

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1997. Canadian ecodistrict climate normals 1961–1990. http://sas.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/district/climate.html. Accessed January 12, 2007.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 2005. Tillage intensity affects weed communities in agroecosystems. in Injerjit, ed. Invasive Plants: Ecological and Agricultural Aspects. Switzerland: Birkhauser Verlag. 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Beckie, H. J., Molnar, L. J., Entz, T., and Moyer, J. R. 2005a. Combining agronomic practices and herbicides improves weed management in wheat–canola rotations within zero-tillage production systems. Weed Sci. 53:528–535.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Brandt, R. N., Janzen, H. H., and Entz, T. 2004a. Weed species response to phosphorus fertilization. Weed Sci. 52:406–412.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Brandt, R. N., Janzen, H. H., Entz, T., Grant, C., and Derksen, D. A. 2003. Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen. Weed Sci. 51:532–539.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., and Janzen, H. H. 2004b. Nitrogen fertilizer timing and application method affect weed growth and competition with spring wheat. Weed Sci. 52:614–622.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., Doram, R. C., and Boswall, A. L. 2001. Yellow sweetclover, green manure, and its residues effectively suppress weeds during fallow. Weed Sci. 49:406–413.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2005b. Integration of agronomic practices and herbicides for sustainable weed management in zero-till barley field pea rotation. Weed Technol. 19:190–196.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., and Huang, H. C. 2005c. Beneficial effects of cover crops on soil health and crop management. in Pandalai, S.G., ed. Recent Research Developments in Soil Science. Kerala, India Research Signpost. 15–35.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., and Janzen, H. H. 2002. Fertilizer application method affects nitrogen uptake in weeds and wheat. Weed Sci. 50:634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., Li, X., O'Donovan, J. T., and Harker, K. N. 1999. An integrated weed management approach to managing foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) in conservation tillage systems. Weed Technol. 13:347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., and O'Donovan, J. T. 2000. Utilization of wheat seed rate to manage redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) in a zero-till cropping system. Weed Technol. 14:389–396.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entz, M. H., Bullied, W. J., and Katepa, F. 1995. Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. J. Prod. Agric. 8:521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. 2006. Leafy field pea (Pisum sativum L.) types augment integrated weed management [Abstract]. New York Weed Science Society of America. 47.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003a. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Kirkland, K. J., Baron, V. S., and Clayton, G. W. 2003b. Early harvest barley (Hordeum vulgare) silage reduces wild oat (Avena fatua) densities under zero tillage. Weed Technol. 17:102–110.Google Scholar
Hucl, P. 1998. Response to weed control by four spring genotypes differing in competitive ability. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78:171–173.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H., Morrison, I. N., and Rourke, R. S. 1990. The Canadian prairie provinces. in Donald, W.W., ed. Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 51–89.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. and Beckie, H. J. 1998. Contribution of nitrogen fertilizer placement to weed management in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 12:507–514.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Staver, C. P. 2001. Crop diversification for weed management. in Liebman, M., Mohler, C.L. and Staver, C.P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 322–374.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. in Liebman, M., Mohler, C.L. and Staver, C.P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 269–322.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and McKenzie, R. 2005. Variable plant establishment contributes to differences in competitiveness with wild oat among wheat and barley varieties. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:771–776.Google Scholar
Pimental, D. A., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 50:53–65.Google Scholar
Smith, E. G., Upadhyay, B. M., Blackshaw, R. E., Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2006. Economic benefits of integrated weed management systems in field crops of western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1273–1279.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada 2006. Field Crop Reporting Series, Catalogue 22-002, 2006. Ottawa, Canada Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, B. M., Smith, E. G., Clayton, G. W., Harker, K. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. 2006. Economics of integrated weed management in herbicide-resistant canola. Weed Sci. 54:138–147.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
Zand, E. and Beckie, H. J. 2002. Competitive ability of hybrid and open-pollinated canola (Brassica napus) with wild oat (Avena fatua). Can. J. Plant Sci. 82:473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zentner, R. P., Wall, D. D., Nagy, C. N., Smith, E. G., Young, D. L., Miller, P. R., Campbell, C. A., McConkey, B. G., and Brandt, S. A. 2002. Economics of crop diversification and soil tillage opportunities in the Canadian prairies. Agron. J. 94:216–230.Google Scholar