Interactions between pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing in spring cereals

Pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing were studied in spring cereals in different environments and with two types of harrows in Norway during 2004–2006. The objectives were to investigate interactions between pre and post-emergence weed harrowing and the importance of harrow type. We hypothesised that pre- and post-emergence harrowing interact positively, that a combination gives more stable weed control effects than pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing used alone, and that a harrow type with bent tines is more aggressive and suitable on hard-packed soils than a harrow with strait tines. The results only supported the last of these hypotheses. Post-emergence weed harrowing controlled a certain percentage of the present weeds, and this percentage was not dependent on pre-emergence weed harrowing. On average, pre-emergence harrowing reduced weed density by 26% and weed biomass by 22%, while the average effect of postemergence harrowing was 47% on weed density and 41% on weed biomass. The combined effect of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing was 61% on weed density and 54% on weed biomass. The combination did not give more stable weed control effects than preand post-emergence weed harrowing used alone. Preemergence harrowing increased the average crop yield by 6.2%, post-emergence harrowing by 4.0% and the combined effect was 10%. Crop yield was mainly increased on hard-packed soils. Weed and crop responses varied strongly among experiments, but the efficacy of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing was positively correlated across experiments. Weed species composition was of minor importance regarding weed control. The study indicates that one aggressive postemergence cultivation may be as good as one preemergence and one less aggressive post-emergence cultivation. However, little is known about the interactions between cultivation at different crop and weed growth stage

Evolutionary-thinking in agricultural weed management

Agricultural weeds evolve in response to crop cultivation. Nevertheless, the central importance of evolutionary ecology for understanding weed invasion, persistence and management in agroecosystems is not widely acknowledged. This paper calls for more evolutionarily-enlightened weed management, in which management principles are informed by evolutionary biology to prevent or minimize weed adaptation and spread. As a first step, a greater knowledge of the extent, structure and significance of genetic variation within and between weed populations is required to fully assess the potential for weed adaptation. The evolution of resistance to herbicides is a classic example of weed adaptation. Even here, most research focuses on describing the physiological and molecular basis of resistance, rather than conducting studies to better understand the evolutionary dynamics of selection for resistance. We suggest approaches to increase the application of evolutionary-thinking to herbicide resistance research. Weed population dynamics models are increasingly important tools in weed management, yet these models often ignore intrapopulation and interpopulation variability, neglecting the potential for weed adaptation in response to management. Future agricultural weed management can benefit from greater integration of ecological and evolutionary principles to predict the long-term responses of weed populations to changing weed management, agricultural environments and global climate

Choosing Book Friends

PDF pages: 3

Tolerance of four spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties to weed harrowing

We investigated the tolerance to weed harrowing of four spring barley varieties and examined the possible interactions between varietal weed suppressive ability and two nutrient levels. Tolerance was defined as the combined effect of crop resistance (ability to resist soil covering) and crop recovery (the ability to recover in terms of yield). The weed harrowing strategy was a combination of one pre- and one post-emergence weed harrowing. In terms of yield, the four varieties responded significantly differently to weed harrowing and the response depended on nutrient level. At the lower nutrient level, weed harrowing caused an increase in yield of 4.4 hkg ha-1 for a strong competitor (cv. Otira), while there was no effect on yield at the higher nutrient level. For a weaker competitor (cv. Brazil), weed harrowing caused no change in yield at the lower nutrient level, whereas yield decreased by 6.0 hkg ha-1 at the higher nutrient level. There were marked differences between the weed suppressive ability of the four varieties when not harrowed, with less pronounced but significant differences when harrowed. Weed harrowing did not change the weed suppressive ability of a variety. Varieties that are tall at post-emergence harrowing and have increased density after pre-emergence harrowing, are the ones that benefit most from weed harrowing

Tolerance to weed harrowing in spring barley genotypes

Controlling weeds in spring cereals grown under organic conditions is mostly done by post emergence weed harrowing, where spring tines of the weed harrow control weeds by uprooting and/or covering small weeds plants with soil. In situations with relatively large weed plants and relatively small crop plants, there are increased risks for crop damages by soil coverage or other mechanical damages of the crop leaves. These damages are increasing with increasing weed control intensity, and are resulting in reduced crop growth immediately after weed harrowing. There are risks that the reduced growth reduces final crop yield too. However, there is some evidence that there are varietal differences in the tolerance to weed harrowing. The aim of this study was to estimate the damages by weed harrowing in four pure genotypes and three two- or one three-component mixtures of spring barley, and to analyze if there were differences in tolerance to weed harrowing between the genotypes and mixtures. Results from a two-year field study showed that there were varietal differences in the tolerance to mechanical weed control in the immediate effect as well as the short term effect, however there were marked differences in the immediate and short term effect between the two years. Regarding the long term effect of weed harrowing on yield, there were no significant differences in 2003 but in 2004, Brazil and the three component mixture suffered significantly from weed harrowing while Modena, Otira and Modena+Orthega mixture, seems to benefit from weed harrowing. The reason for these differences is probably due to differences in growth habit at the time for weed harrowing