Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T05:53:19.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Interference in Barley (Hordeum vulgare) is Influenced by Barley Variety and Seeding Rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John T. O'Donovan ,
K. Neil Harker ,
George W. Clayton  and
Linda M. Hall
John T. O'Donovan*
Affiliation:
Alberta Research Council, Vegreville, AB Canada T9C 1T4
K. Neil Harker
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe, AB Canada T4L 1W1
George W. Clayton
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe, AB Canada T4L 1W1
Linda M. Hall
Affiliation:
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, AB Canada T6H 4P2
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: o'[email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Vegreville and Lacombe, AB, to determine the influence of barley (Hordeum vulgare) variety and seeding rate on interference of wild oat (Avena fatua) with barley. Barley variety and seeding rate affected barley density, height at maturity, and seed yield, as well as wild oat shoot dry weight and seed yield in most experiments, but there was no variety by seeding rate interaction. As expected, the semidwarf varieties Falcon and CDC Earl were the shortest. Barley seedling emergence and subsequent plant densities varied among varieties, locations, and years. The hull-less varieties Falcon and CDC Dawn had the poorest emergence in most cases, whereas AC Lacombe and Seebe had the highest emergence. Wild oat shoot dry matter and seed production was highest in the Falcon, CDC Dawn, and CDC Earl plots, suggesting that these were the least competitive with wild oat. Barley yield loss from wild oat interference also tended to be highest in these varieties. Poor emergence of Falcon and CDC Dawn and the shorter stature of Falcon and CDC Earl likely contributed to their relatively poor competitiveness with wild oat. Increasing the seeding rate improved the competitiveness of all varieties, as evidenced by reduced wild oat shoot dry matter and seed production and, in some cases, improved barley yields.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. #3 AVEFAbarley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Falcon’, ‘Phoenix’, ‘AC Lacombe’, ‘Seebe’, ‘CDC Earl’, ‘Harrington’, ‘CDC Dawn’Hull-less barleysemidwarf barleywild oat competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 624 - 629
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

Balyan, R. S., Malik, R. K., Panwar, R. S., and Singh, S. 1991. Competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars with wild oat (Avena ludoviciana). Weed Sci. 39: 154–158.Google Scholar
Barton, D. L., Thill, D. C., and Bahman, S. 1992. Integrated wild oat (Avena fatua) management affects spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) yield and economics. Weed Technol. 6: 129–135.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 production of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 29: 212–217.Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1985. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition in spring wheat: plant density effects. Weed Sci. 33: 176–181.Google Scholar
Challaiah, R. E., Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Johnson, V. A. 1986. Competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 34: 689–693.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1995. Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Res. 35: 241–247.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35: 720–725.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52: 921–927.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. and Keyes, C. H. 1976. An index of competition for estimating loss of rape due to wild oat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56: 1005–1006.Google Scholar
Edney, M. J., Tkachuk, R., and MacGregor, A. W. 1992. Nutrient composition of the hull-less barley ‘Condor’. J. Sci. Food Agric. 60: 451–456.Google Scholar
Evans, R. M., Thill, D. C., Thapia, L. S., Shafii, B., and Lish, J. M. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) density affect spring barley grain yield. Weed Technol. 5: 33–39.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M., Murray, B. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Morrison, I. N. 1993. Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 41: 232–238.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M. and Maxwell, B. D. 1994. Population genetics and the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds. Phytoprotection 75 (Suppl.): 25–35.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Weed management in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) in the absence of herbicides. J. Sustain. Agric. 3: 95–104.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. 1995. Losses in grain yields of winter crops from Lolium rigidum competition depend on crop species, cultivar and season. Weed Res. 35: 503–509.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. 1988. Wild oat infestations and economic returns as influenced by frequency of control. Weed Technol. 2: 495–498.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Harker, K. N., Maurice, D., Baig, M. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Wild oat (Avena fatua) populations resistant to triallate are also resistant to difenzoquat. Weed Sci. 42: 195–199.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Newman, J. C., Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and McAndrew, D. W. 1999. Effect of barley plant density on wild oat interference, shoot biomass and seed yield under zero tillage. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79: 655–662.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Seefeldt, S. S. 1999. Characterizing traits that enhance the competitiveness of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Sci. 47: 74–80.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Ogg, A. G., and Hou, Y. 1999. Near isogenic lines for Triticum aestivum height and crop competitiveness. Weed Sci. 47: 316–320.Google Scholar
Thill, D. C., O'Donovan, J. T., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 1994. Integrated weed management strategies for delaying herbicide resistance. Phytoprotection 75 (Suppl.): 61–70.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Frick, B. L., and Hall, L. M. 1998. Alberta Weed Survey of Cereal and Oilseed Crops in 1997. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Ser. Publ. 98-2. 242 p.Google Scholar
White, N.D.G., Hulasare, R. B., and Jayas, D. S. 1999. Effects of storage conditions on quality loss of hull-less and hulled oat and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79: 475–482.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Ramsel, R. E., Nordquist, P. T., Smith, J. W., and Challaiah, R. E. 1986. Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agron. J. 78: 59–62.Google Scholar