Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:22:38.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tillage and Nitrogen Influence Weed Population Dynamics in Barley (Hordeum vulgare)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John T. O'Donovan ,
David W. McAndrew  and
A. Gordon Thomas
John T. O'Donovan
Affiliation:
Alberta Research Council, Postal Bag 4000, Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C IT4
David W. McAndrew
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agri-Food Diversification Research Centre 101, Route 100, Morden, MB, Canada R6M 1Y5
A. Gordon Thomas
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were initiated at Alliance and Hairy Hill, Alberta, in 1989 to investigate the effects of conventional tillage, zero tillage, and four levels of nitrogen fertilizer on continuous barley production. In both tillage systems, the nitrogen was banded 6 to 8 cm deep between alternate barley rows. Herbicides were used for weed control each year. The influence of tillage and nitrogen on weed seed population dynamics was determined in 1991 and 1992. In the zero-tillage system, a large proportion of the weed seeds were present either at the soil surface or at the 5- to 10-cm depth. Green foxtail, the dominant species at Alliance, was also present at Hairy Hill where field pennycress was dominant. Green foxtail was consistently associated with low (residual) nitrogen and, in most cases, with conventional tillage. At both locations, green foxtail populations tended to decrease to very low levels as nitrogen rate increased, especially in zero tillage. At Hairy Hill, field pennycress populations in the soil seedbank were higher in zero tillage compared with conventional tillage, but plants that emerged from the soil seedbank in the field in spring were lower in zero tillage. Field pennycress populations were highest under low nitrogen. The results indicate that banding nitrogen has the potential to be an effective tool for green foxtail and field pennycress management in conventional- and zero-tillage systems, resulting in less dependence on herbicides for their control.

Keywords

Field pennycress, Thlapsi arvense L.# THLARgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIbarley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Leduc’Banded nitrogenfield pennycressgreen foxtailordinationzero tillageSETVITHLARPOLCOConv, conventional tillage systemNadd, nitrogen at 60, 120, and 180 kg/haNres, residual nitrogenRDA, redundancy analysiszero, zero-tillage system
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 502 - 509
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

Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40:654–659.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8:231–237.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Stobbe, E. H., and Sturko, A.R.W. 1981. Effect of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and productivity of spring wheat. Weed Sci. 29:212–217.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. and Warrington, K. 1930. The weed seed population of arable soil. I. Numerical estimation of viable weed seeds and observations on their natural dormancy. J. Ecol. 18:235–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34:29–33.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1964. The depth of weed seed germination in the field. Proc. 7th British Weed Control Conf. 2:607–613.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1979. The long-term effects of herbicides on weed populations. Ann. Appl. Biol. 91:141–144.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.Google Scholar
Proud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D.S.H. 1981. Potential changes in weed floras associated with reduced cultivation systems for cereal production in temperate regions. Weed Res. 21:99–09.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D.S.H. 1984. The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Drennan, D.S.H., and Chancellor, R. J. 1983. Influence of cultivation regime on weed flora of arable land. J. Appl. Ecol. 20:187–197 Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1982. The long-term effects of fertilizer application and three rotations on weed communities in wheat (after 21–22 years at Indian Head, Saskatchewan). Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:741–750.Google Scholar
Hume, L., Tessier, S., and Dyck, F. B. 1991. Tillage and rotation influences on weed community composition in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:783–789.Google Scholar
Jongeman, R. H., ter Braak, C.J.F., and van Tongaen, O.F.R. 1987. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Pudoc. 299 p.Google Scholar
Lafond, G., Brandt, S., McAndrew, D., Stobbe, E., and Tessier, S. 1990. Tillage systems and crop production. In Lafond, G. P. and Fowler, D. P., eds. Crop Management for Conservation. Yorkton, SK, Canada: Proceedings of the Soil Conservation Symposium. pp. 155–201.Google Scholar
Mahli, S. S. and Nyborg, M. 1990. Effect of tillage and straw on yield and N uptake of barley grown under different N fertility regimes. Soil Tillage Res. 17:115–124.Google Scholar
McAndrew, D. W., Fuller, L. G., and Wetter, L. G. 1994. Grain and straw yields of barley under four tillage systems in northeastern Alberta. can. J. Plant Sci. 74:713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareja, M. R., Staniforth, D. W., and Pareja, G. P. 1985. Distribution of weed seed among soil structural units. Weed Sci. 33:182–189.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. A. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Environment influences green foxtail competition with wheat. Weed Technol. 6:607–610.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Neilson, J. E. 1981. Changes in the soil seed bank of Four long-term crop/herbicide experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 18:661–668.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. and Orwick, P. L. 1978. Influence of nitrogen fertilizer on growth of foxtail (Setaria) taxa. Weed Sci. 26:547–550.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. and Wiese, A. F. 1985. Weed biology and its relationship to weed control in limited tillage systems. In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of Am. Monograph No. 2. pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Pots, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39:195–199.Google Scholar
ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987–1992. CANOCO-a FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination. Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power.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
Thompson, K., Band, S. R., and Hodgson, J. G. 1993. Seed size and shape predict persistence in soil. Funct. Ecol. 7:236–241.Google Scholar