Weed harrowing in winter cereal under semi-arid conditions

Sanclemente, Gabriel Pardo; Ranzenberger, Alicia Cirujeda; Aibar, J.; Cavero, J.; Zaragoza, C.

doi:10.5424/sjar/2008064-358

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, not significant differences were observed between N2 (2 passages at T1) and N3 (1 passage at T1 + 1 passage at T1+14 days) (Table 3). These results are in perfect accordance with those of Pardo et al (2008) that reported as two harrowing passes achieved a higher efficacy than one single pass and little differences were detected if the second pass was conducted the same day, across the sowing direction or 15 days later. Furthermore, Bàrberi et al (2000) observed that weeds uncontrolled by the first harrowing treatment were not controlled by the second treatment, as they were bigger then.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

Mechanical weed control in organic winter wheat

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three field experiments were carried out in organic winter wheat in three consecutive years (exp. 1, 2005-06; exp. 2, 2006-07; exp. 3, 2007-08) in central Italy (42°57' N -12°22' E, 165 m a.s.l.) in order to evaluate the efficacy against weeds and the effects on winter wheat of two main mechanical weed control strategies: i) spring tine harrowing used at three different application times (1 passage at T1, 2 passages at the time T1, 1 passage at T1 followed by 1 passage at T1 + 14 days) in the crop sowed at narrow (traditional) row spacing (0.15 m); and ii) split-hoeing and finger-weeder, alone and combined at T1, in the crop sowed at wider row spacing (0.30 m). At the time T1 winter wheat was at tillering and weeds were at the cotyledons-2 true leaves growth stage. The experimental design was a randomized block with four replicates. Six weeks after mechanical treatments, weed ground cover (%) was rated visually using the Braun-Blanquet coverabundance scale; weeds on three squares (0.6×0.5 m each one) per plot were collected, counted, weighed, dried in oven at 105°C to determine weed density and weed above-ground dry biomass. At harvest, wheat ears density, grain yield, weight of 1000 seeds and hectolitre weight were recorded. Total weed flora was quite different in the three experiments. The main weed species were: . 3). In the winter wheat sowed at narrow rows, 2 passages with spring-tine harrowing at the same time seems to be the best option in order to reconcile a good efficacy with the feasibility of treatment. In wider rows spacing the best weed control was obtained by split hoeing alone or combined with finger-weeder. The grain yield, on average 10% higher in narrow rows, the lower costs and the good selectivity of spring-tine harrowing treatments seem to suggest the adoption of narrow rows spacing in wheat in organic and low-input farming systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

Mechanical weed control in organic winter wheat

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No significant differences were found between individual systems with the same type of rotation (Table 3). In addition, in this trial no yield penalties were observed in the non-chemical systems with a single harrow pass, as other authors observed in semi-arid conditions in North-Eastern Spain (Pardo et al 2008). It has been shown, in the absence of weeds, that a sowing delay reduces cereal yields in rain-fed cropping systems because the crop cannot reach the optimal or potential development in a shorter growing period (Spink et al 2005).…”

Section: Yield Datasupporting

confidence: 54%

Management of herbicide-resistant Papaver rhoeas in dry land cereal fields

Torra¹,

Royo‐Esnal²,

Guinjuan³

2011

Agronomy Sust. Developm.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Papaver rhoeas is the most common dicotyledonous weed in winter cereals in southern Europe. It is an increasing problem due to the appearance of herbicide resistant biotypes to synthetic auxines and/or to sulfonylureas. The development of management strategies that combine both cultural and chemical tactics is required. We evaluated the combination of different strategies for the management of a herbicide resistant P. rhoeas population to 2,4-D with high infestation levels during four consecutive seasons, from 2002-2003 to 2005-1006, in a rain-fed winter cereal field in North-Eastern Spain. The experiment included the traditional wheat monocrop and five management systems with different combinations of chemical and physical fallows, delayed seeding with barley, chemical and mechanical control, chisel cultivation and mouldboard ploughing. Weed densities along the season and yield at harvest were measured for each treatment. Our results show that in all systems reductions from 90% to 100% of the weed densities were reached. No yield penalties were detected for the non-chemical systems with harrowing along seasons. Moreover, the last 2005/06 season yields, of 2,183-2,356 kg/ ha, were higher than the system with traditional wheat monocrop (1,820 kg/ha). The system with delayed seeding every two seasons had the highest yield, of 4,093 kg/ha, the second season, and no differences with other management systems monitored were found other seasons. Delayed seeding and the different fallows studied showed their effectiveness in reducing weed densities, but always combined with other control methods like chemical control or cultivation. This study shows that effective control of herbicide resistant P. rhoeas can be achieved with adequate management programmes that combine two or more different strategies, with less dependence on herbicides. These findings define cultural management strategies to reduce herbicide resistant P. rhoeas infestations and to contribute to integrated weed management strategies combining these with other tools.

show abstract

“…Comparing our results with reports based on qualitative experimental approaches, where one or two passes with a harrow are carried out at different growth stages, is not straightforward (Dastgheib, 2004;Ausˇkalnis & Ausˇkalnien_ e , 2008;Pardo et al, 2008;Velykis et al, 2009). To describe a treatment with a cultivator by the number of passes is more or less like describing a herbicidal treatment by the amount of herbicide used without information about the active ingredient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…However, we think that selectivity is an unavoidable concept in relation to whole‐crop and intra‐row cultivation and see no alternative when decisions about aggressiveness of cultivation have to be taken. Setting and use of cultivators have to be based on the immediate crop and weed responses, because it is impossible to predict crop and weed impacts from given settings and uses of implements (Pardo et al. , 2008; Rasmussen et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of post‐emergence weed harrowing

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rasmussen J, Mathiasen H & Bibby BM (2010). Timing of post‐emergence weed harrowing. Weed Research50, 436–446. Summary The timing of post‐emergence weed harrowing was evaluated for two years in spring barley with crop‐weed selectivity and crop recovery as the key parameters measured. Selectivity describes the relationship between weed control and crop soil cover immediately after harrowing, with crop soil cover as the percentage of the crop that has been covered by soil due to harrowing. Crop recovery describes the relationship between crop yield loss and crop soil cover in the absence of weeds. Neither selectivity nor crop recovery was affected by timing within a period of two weeks in the early growth stages of spring barley. Selectivity was unaffected by year and 80% weed control was associated with crop soil cover in the range of 23–33%, for all combinations of year and growth stage. Crop recovery was affected by year, with an average crop yield loss of 3.5% caused by 25% crop soil cover in 2007 and complete recovery in 2008. A detailed study of crop growth and weed density in the period just after harrowing, showed that the recovery processes of crop and weeds were influenced by timing of harrowing, but this had no impacts on crop yield. In conclusion, timing of post‐emergence weed harrowing was not found to be crucial, given the condition that the aggressiveness of cultivation was adjusted to the growth stage.

show abstract

Weed harrowing in winter cereal under semi-arid conditions

Cited by 18 publications

References 14 publications

Mechanical weed control in organic winter wheat

Mechanical weed control in organic winter wheat

Management of herbicide-resistant Papaver rhoeas in dry land cereal fields

Timing of post‐emergence weed harrowing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About