Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:59:38.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed suppression and crop production in annual intercrops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anthony Szumigalski  and
Rene Van Acker
Anthony Szumigalski
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intercrops have been associated with greater yields and pest and weed control compared with sole crops. In this field experiment, we investigated agronomic performance and weed suppression by three crops—spring wheat (Triticum aestivum), canola (Brassica napus), and field pea (Pisum sativum)—alone and in all possible combinations at two sites in Manitoba, Canada, from 2001 to 2003. Crop treatments were planted at the same total density (144 seeds m−2). The effects of the different crop combinations on weed recruitment and biomass and crop production were studied in both the presence and absence of in-crop herbicides. The agronomic performance of intercrop and sole crop treatments varied greatly across site-years. Some intercrop treatments (e.g., wheat–canola and wheat–canola–pea) tended to produce greater weed suppression compared with sole component crops, indicating synergism among crops within intercrops with regard to weed suppression. Intercrop treatments resulted in land-equivalent ratios (LER) > 1 (i.e., overyielding) in both the presence and absence of in-crop herbicides. In the presence of herbicides, canola–pea was the most consistent intercrop treatment in terms of overyielding for grain (mean LER = 1.22), whereas in the absence of herbicides, wheat–canola–pea produced the most consistent overyielding frequency for dry matter production (mean LER = 1.28). In the presence of herbicides, overall grain yield stability was greatest for the wheat–canola–pea intercrop treatment. Results indicate that annual intercrops can enhance both weed suppression and crop production compared with sole crops.

Keywords

Canola, Brassica napus L. ‘Clearfield 46A76’field pea, Pisum sativum L. ‘DS-Stallworth’spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Clearfield BW755’Polyculturesrecruitmentweed biomasscrop competitionland-equivalent ratio
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 6 , December 2005 , pp. 813 - 825
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

Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. 1986. Insect, weed and plant disease management in multiple cropping systems. Pages 183–218 in Francis, C. A. ed. Multiple Cropping Systems. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1988. Field Crop Production Guide for Manitoba 1988–90. Carman, MB, Canada: Manitoba Agriculture. 90 p.Google Scholar
Bantilan, R. T., Palada, M. C., and Harwood, R. K. 1974. Integrated weed management: I. Key factors affecting crop–weed balance. Philipp. Weed Sci. Bull 1:14–36.Google Scholar
Berkenkamp, B. and Meeres, J. 1987. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci 67:175–183.Google Scholar
Boyd, N. and Van Acker, R. 2004. Seed and microsite limitations to emergence of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 52:571–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulson, H. A. J., Snaydon, R. W., and Stopes, C. E. 1997. Effects of plant density on intercropped wheat and field beans in an organic farming system. J. Agric. Sci 128:59–71.Google Scholar
Carr, P. M., Gardner, J. C., Schatz, B. G., Zwinger, S. W., and Guldan, S. J. 1995. Grain-yield and weed biomass of a wheat–lentil intercrop. Agron. J 87:574–579.Google Scholar
Clesceri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E., and Eaton, A. D. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association. 1220 p.Google Scholar
Cowell, L. E., Bremer, E., and Vankessel, C. 1989. Yield and N-2 fixation of pea and lentil as affected by intercropping and N application. Can. J. Soil Sci 69:243–251.Google Scholar
Federer, W. T. 1999. Statistical Design and Analysis for Intercropping Experiments. Volume 2. Three or More Crops. New York: Springer. 262 p.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A. 1986. Introduction: distribution and importance of multiple cropping. Pages 1–19 in Francis, C. A. ed. Multiple Cropping Systems. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A. 1989. Biological efficiencies in multiple-cropping systems. Adv. Agron 42:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gliessman, S. R. 1986. Plant interactions in multiple cropping systems. Pages 82–95 in Francis, C. A. ed. Multiple Cropping Systems. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. Toronto: J. Wiley. 680 p.Google Scholar
Grundy, A. C., Mead, A., Burston, S., and Overs, T. 2004. Seed production of Chenopodium album in competition with field vegetables. Weed Res 44:271–281.Google Scholar
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. and Jensen, E. S. 2001. Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crops Res 72:185–196.Google Scholar
Izaurralde, R. C., Juma, N. G., and Mcgill, W. B. 1990. Plant and nitrogen yield of barley–field pea intercrop in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agron. J 82:295–301.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Langat, P. K. 1992. Effect of Intercropping Pea with Canola or Yellow Mustard. M.Sc. dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 89 p.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop-rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl 3:92–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Lotz, L. A. P., Christensen, S., and Cloutier, D. et al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res 36:93–101.Google Scholar
McKeague, J. A. 1976. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Prepared for Subcommittee of Canada Soil Survey Committee on Methods of Analysis. Ottawa, Canada: Soil Research Institute.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Liebman, M. 1987. Weed productivity and composition in sole crops and intercrops of barley and field pea. J. Appl. Ecol 24:685–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazarko, O. M., Van Acker, R. C., and Entz, M. H. 2005. Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: a review. Can. J. Plant Sci 85:457–479.Google Scholar
Oyejola, B. A. and Mead, R. 1982. Statistical assessment of different ways of calculating land equivalent ratios (LER). Exp. Agric 18:125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soria, J., Bazan, R., Pinchinat, A. M., Paez, G., Mateo, N., Moreno, R., Fargas, J., and Forsythe, W. 1975. Investigacion sobre sistemas de produccion agricola para el pequeno agricultor del tropico. Turriualba 25:283–293.Google Scholar
Staver, C. 1989. Shortened bush fallow rotations with relay-cropped Inga edulis and Desmodium ovalifolium in wet central amazonian Peru. Agroforest. Syst 8:173–196.Google Scholar
Subedi, K. D. 1997. Wheat intercropped with tori (Brassica campestris var. toria) and pea (Pisum sativum) in the subsistence farming system of the Nepalese hills. J. Agric. Sci 128:283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management—the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Szumigalski, A. R. 2005. Studies of the Functionality of Annual Crop and Weed Diversity in Polyculture Cropping Systems. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 218 p.Google Scholar
Unamma, R. P. A., Ene, L. S. O., Odurukwe, S. O., and Enyinnia, T. 1986. Integrated weed management for cassava intercropped with maize. Weed Res 26:9–17.Google Scholar
Vandermeer, J. H. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. New York: Cambridge University Press. 237 p.Google Scholar
Walton, P. D. 1975. Annual forages seeding rates and mixtures for central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci 55:987–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterer, J. G., Vessey, J. K., Stobbe, E. H., and Soper, R. J. 1994. Yield and symbiotic nitrogen-fixation in a pea mustard intercrop as influenced by N fertilizer addition. Soil Biol. Biochem 26:447–453.Google Scholar
Watson, P. 2004. The Contribution of Attributes in the Seed, Seedling, and Mature Plant Phases to Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Cultivar Competitiveness Against Weeds. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 242 p.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. 1979. Intercropping—its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abst 32:1–10.Google Scholar