seed production and, hence, the seed pool and future weed population, suggesting that fertilize r usage can be exploited in an integrated programme of ciopiwecd management. A trend towards lower N fertilizer application owing lo concerns about the environment willlavour most of the weed spedes investigated in these experiments and change the composition of weed populations.The effects of nitrogen fertilizer on the growth and density of natural weed populations io spring barley (Hordeum vuigare L.) and winter wheat (Trlticum aestivum L.) were investigated in the absence of herbicide. An increased level of applied nitrogen did not enhance: weed germination, tended to decrease the total weed biomass and had a differential effect upon the biomass of individual weed spedes ia both wheat and barky. In competition with barley, Chenopodium album L. and Lamlum spp. had lower nitrogen optima ihan the crop, while Urtica wens L. had a higher nitrogen optimum. In competition with wheat, Stellaria media (L.) Vill., Lamium spp. and Veronica spp. had lower nitrogen optima than the crop. The systematic changes in nitrogen effect with time were analysed by fitting orthogonal polynomials to the growth and density curves. The methodology could be recommended for other studies in which time or other systematic factors are included, as it supplies information which a traditional analysis of variance cannot provide. Since seed production is positively correlated with biomass, so nitrogen level affects
Summary Field trials were carried out at a single Danish and two Spanish locations. In Denmark, winter wheat was sown at 24‐cm row spacing allowing hoeing in the inter‐row area. Hoeing speeds of 2, 5 and 8 km h−1 were tested at the end of tillering, at the beginning of stem elongation or on both occasions. The crop was harrowed immediately after hoeing at the same speed. At the Spanish locations the winter barley was sown at a 12‐cm row spacing and harrowed only, at either pre‐emergence plus post‐emergence, or once post‐emergence at mid‐tillering at 2, 4, 6 and 8 km h−1. The depth of the soil layer thrown into the cereal row was measured at all locations. This layer ranged between 0.4 and 1.4 cm, depending on the site and on the treatment, but was generally higher following a single harrow treatment at all sites. The soil layer only tended to increase with faster speeds at the Danish location. On a more sandy soil and soil rolled prior to treatment, less soil was thrown into the cereal row. When two hoe + harrowing treatments were made, a finer soil structure was achieved. However, this did not affect the weed control. At the Danish location, initial intra‐row weeding efficacy of Brassica napus, based on plant number before and 7 days after treatment, was found to be low (21–41%) but increased to 74–79% when assessed after 45 days. Partial burial and bending of B. napus, together with crop competition, probably suppressed weed growth and enhanced final mortality. Uprooting was probably a more important cause of mortality for Stellaria media. At the Spanish locations, weeding efficacy of Papaver rhoeas was similar, ranging between 58% and 83% and this was achieved soon after harrowing. A thicker soil layer did not result in a greater weed kill. It was therefore suggested that burial alone could not be the main factor responsible for weed control in any of the cases studied. No reduction in wheat biomass, measured at the end of May, was found with increasing speed, or with repeated passes of the harrow. The results suggested that faster harrowing, which is economically more attractive for farmers, could be recommended. The soil layer thrown into the row was not found to be a useful parameter to predict the weed control efficacy in the cases presented.
A series of six field experiments on spring barley were conducted to test the effect of fertilizer placement compared with broadcast application on weeds and crop yield. The experiments were carried out in 1993, 1994 and 1995, on two soil types, with three levels of fertilizing and without use of pesticides. Fertilizer placement reduced weed biomass by 55% and weed density by 10% and increased grain yield by 28%, on average. The strong erects on weeds were presumably due to a positive interaction between crop competition and weed control by weed harrowing. The biomass of almost all frequent weed species was reduced by fertilizer placement. The effect of fertilizer placement on weed density was weaker than on biomass. Fertilizer placement increased grain yield more on coarse sand than on sandy loam. All the effects were more pronounced in 1993 than in 1994 and 1995, most likely owing to dry weather in the spring of 1993.
Two field experiments investigated the influences of crop seed vigour on the effect of weed harrowing and crop:weed interactions in spring barley. Artificially reduced seed vigour, which was similar to the variation within commercial seed lots, caused a reduction in germination rate, delayed time of emergence and, consequently, caused reduced competitive ability against weeds. During both years, the reduced seed vigour increased the average weed biomass by 169% and 210%, and reduced the average crop yield by 16% and 21%. Without the influence of weeds, the yield reduction was estimated to be 8% and 10%. A three‐times harrowing strategy reduced the weed biomass by 75% and 72% on average. However, it also caused damage to the crop and reduced yield. There was no clear interaction between barley seed vigour and weed harrowing in the experiments but, in one year, reduced seed vigour tended to decrease the effect of weed harrowing and also increased crop damage. Results in both years, however, indicate potential possibilities for successful integrated weed control by adding the use of high seed quality to a weed harrowing strategy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.