Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:39:15.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Suppression by Canola and Mustard Cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hugh J. Beckie ,
Eric N. Johnson ,
Robert E. Blackshaw  and
Yantai Gan
Hugh J. Beckie*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0X2
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
AAFC, Scott Research Farm, P.O. Box 10, Scott, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 4A0
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
AAFC, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
Yantai Gan
Affiliation:
AAFC, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, P.O. Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Canada S9H 3X2
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competitive crops or cultivars can be an important component of integrated weed management systems. A study was conducted from 2003 to 2006 at four sites across semiarid prairie ecoregions in western Canada to investigate the weed-suppression ability of canola and mustard cultivars. Four open-pollinated canola cultivars, four hybrid canola cultivars, two canola-quality mustard cultivars, two oriental mustard cultivars, and two yellow mustard cultivars were grown in competition with indigenous weed communities. Yellow mustard was best able to suppress weed growth, followed in decreasing order of weed competitiveness by oriental mustard and hybrid canola, open-pollinated canola, and canola-quality mustard. Competitive response of cultivars, assessed by weed biomass suppression, was negatively correlated with time to crop emergence and positively correlated with early-season crop biomass accumulation (prior to bolting) and plant height.

Keywords

Canola, Brassica napus L.oriental mustard or canola-quality mustard, Brassica juncea L. Czern. & Cossyellow mustard, Sinapis alba L.Competitive cropsoilseed cropweed competitionweed interference
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 182 - 185
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

Anonymous, , 2007. 2007 Guide to Crop Protection: Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Regina, Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. 376.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., Hall, L. M., Warwick, S. I., Légère, A., Sikkema, P. H., Clayton, G. W., Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J. Y., Séguin-Swartz, G., and Simard, M-J. 2006. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can J. Plant Sci. 86:1243–1264.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Johnson, E. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Gan, Y. 2008. Productivity and quality of canola and mustard cultivars under weed competition. Can. J. Plant Sci. 88.in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Differential competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars against downy brome. Agron. J. 86:649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canola Council of Canada 1984. Chapter 10. Weeds, Insects and Diseases. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canola Growers Manual, Canola Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Daugovish, O., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 2002. Competition between wild oat (Avena fatua) and yellow mustard (Sinapis alba) or canola (Brassica napus). Weed Sci. 50:587–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esser, A. D. 1998. Agronomic and economic feasibility of yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) as an alternative crop in the dryland region of the Pacific Northwest. M.S. thesis. Moscow, ID University of Idaho. 156.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:433–440.Google Scholar
Huel, D. G. and Hucl, P. 1996. Genotypic variation for competitive ability in spring wheat. Plant Breed 115:325–329.Google Scholar
Linde, C. E., Derksen, D. A., and Van Acker, R. C. 2001. The impact of seed treatment, cultivar, and crop density on canola (Brassica napus) competitiveness. Pages 101–104. in. Expert Committee on Weeds: Proceedings of the 2000 National Meeting, Banff, Alberta, Canada. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC: Expert Committee on Weeds.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 269–321. in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staves, C. P., editors. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, K., Robles, R. P., Paller, E. C. Jr, and Lales, J. S. 2000. Oryza sativa plant traits conferring competitive ability against weeds. Weed Sci. 48:200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technol. 14:624–629.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. 1998. Producer attitudes and weed management. Pages 43–59. in Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., editors. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1999. SAS Online Doc®, Version 8. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml. Accessed: October 28, 2007.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.Google Scholar