Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interference and economic threshold level of little seed canary grass in wheat under different sowing times

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Little seed canary grass (LCG) is a pernicious weed of wheat crop causing enormous yield losses. Information on the interference and economic threshold (ET) level of LCG is of prime significance to rationalize the use of herbicide for its effective management in wheat fields. The present study was conducted to quantify interference and ET density of LCG in mid-sown (20 November) and late-sown (10 December) wheat. Experiment was triplicated in randomized split-plot design with sowing dates as the main plots and LCG densities (10, 20, 30, and 40 plants m−2) as the subplots. Plots with two natural infestations of weeds including and excluding LCG were maintained for comparing its interference in pure stands with designated densities. A season-long weed-free treatment was also run. Results indicated that composite stand of weeds, including LCG, and density of 40 LCG plants m−2 were more competitive with wheat, especially when crop was sown late in season. Maximum weed dry biomass was attained by composite stand of weeds including LCG followed by 40 LCG plants m−2 under both sowing dates. Significant variations in wheat growth and yield were observed under the influence of different LCG densities as well as sowing dates. Presence of 40 LCG plants m−2 reduced wheat yield by 28 and 34 % in mid- and late-sown wheat crop, respectively. These losses were much greater than those for infestation of all weeds, excluding LCG. Linear regression model was effective in simulating wheat yield losses over a wide range of LCG densities, and the regression equations showed good fit to observed data. The ET levels of LCG were 6–7 and 2.2–3.3 plants m−2 in mid- and late-sown wheat crop, respectively. Herbicide should be applied in cases when LCG density exceeds these levels under respective sowing dates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akobundu IO (1987) Weed science in the tropics: principles and practices, 1st edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali MA, Ali M, Sattar M, Ali L (2010) Sowing date effect on yield of different wheat varieties. J Agric Res 48:157–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Anwar J, Ahmad A, Khaliq T, Mubeen M, Sultana SR (2011) Optimization of sowing time for promising wheat genotypes in semiarid environment of Faisalabad. Crop Environ 2:24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhan VM, Chaudhary DBS (1976) Germination, growth and reproducing behavior of Phalaris minor Retz. as affected by the date of planting. Indian J Weed Sci 8:126–130

  • Buhler DD, Gunsolus JL (1996) Effect of date of pre plant tillage and planting on weed populations and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:373–379

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chhokar RS, Malik RK (1999) Effect of temperature on the germination of Phalaris minor Retz. Indian J Weed Sci 31:73–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhokar RS, Malik RK (2002) Isoproturon resistant Phalaris minor and its response to alternate herbicides. Weed Technol 16:116–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chhokar RS, Singh S, Sharma RK (2008) Herbicides for control of isoproturon–resistant little seed canary grass (Phalaris minor) in wheat. Crop Prot 27:719–726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cousens R (1987) Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot 2:13–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Coventry DR, Gupta RK, Yadav A, Poswal RS, Chhokar RS, Sharma RK, Yadav VK, Gill SC, Kumar A, Mehta A, Kleemann SGL, Bonamano A, Cummins JA (2011) Wheat quality and productivity as affected by varieties and seeding time in Haryana, India. Field Crops Res 123:214–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cussans GW, Cousens RD, Wilson BJ (1986) Thresholds for weed control – the concepts and their interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Weed Research Society Symposium on Economic Weed Control (Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany, 1986). EuropeanWeed Research Society, Oxford, pp 253–260

  • Das TK (2008) Weed science: basics and applications, 1st edn. Jain Brothers, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Das TK, Sakhuja PK, Zelleke H (2010) Herbicide efficacy and non-target toxicity in highland rain fed maize of eastern Ethiopia. Int J Pest Manag 56:315–325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Estorninos JLE, Gealy DR, Gbur EE, Talbert RE, Mc–Clleland MR (2005) Rice and red rice interference. II. Rice response to population densities of three red rice (Oryza sativa) ecotypes. Weed Sci 53:683–689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L, Palmai O (2008) The influence of nitrogen fertilization and sowing date on weediness of winter wheat. Cereal Res Commun 36:1159–1162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gee GW, Bauder JW (1982) Particle size analysis. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 1: physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. Am Soc Agron Madison, Wisconsin, pp 383–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Gower SA, Loux MM, Cardina J, Harrison SK (2002) Effect of planting date, residual herbicide and post-emergent application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn. Weed Technol 16:488–494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanway JJ, Heidel H (1952) Soil analysis methods as used in Iowa State College Soil Testing Laboratory. Iowa Agric 54:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt R (1978) Plant growth analysis. The Institute of Biology’s Studies in Biology No. 96. Edward Arnold Ltd., London, pp 8–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Huusela–Veistola E, Jalli H, Salonen J, Pahkala K (2006) Sowing time affects the abundance of pests and weeds in winter rye. Agric Food Sci 15:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson ML (1973) Methods of chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Jing RL, Chang XP (2003) Genetic diversity in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) germplasm resources with drought resistance. Acta Bot Boreal-Occident Sin 23:410–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney DR, Nelson DW (1982) Nitrogen: inorganic forms. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2: chemical and microbiological properties. Am Soc Agron Madison, Wisconsin, pp 643–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan M, Haq N (2002) Wheat crop yield loss assessment due to weeds. Sarhad J Agric 18:443–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi H, Oyanagi A (2006) Soybean sowing date effects on weed communities in untilled and tilled fields in north-eastern Japan. Weed Biol Manag 6:177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik RK, Yadav A, Garg VK, Balyan RS, Malik YS, Malik RS, Dhawan R (1995) Herbicide resistance, current status and research findings. Extension Year Bulletin, CCS Haryana Agri.Uni. Hisar, India, 37p

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean EO (1982) Soil pH and lime requirement. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2: chemical and microbiological properties. Am Soc Agron, Madison, pp 199–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2: chemical and microbiological properties. Am Soc Agron, Madison, pp 539–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Oad FC, Saddiqui MH, Buririo UA (2007) Growth and yield losses in wheat due to different weed densities. Asian J Plant Sci 6:173–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Om H, Kumarand S, Dhiman SD (2004) Biology and management of Phalaris minor in rice–wheat system. Crop Prot 23:1157–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen IA (2004) The effect of sowing date, stale seedbed, row width and mechanical weed control on weeds and yields of organic winter wheat. Weed Res 44:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh S, Kirkwood RC, Marshall G (1999) Biology and control of Phalaris minor Retz. in wheat. Crop Prot 18:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA (1997) Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill Book, Columbus, pp 172–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadesse B, Das TK, Yaduraju NT (2010) Effects of some integrated management options on parthenium interference in sorghum. Weed Biol Manag 10:160–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Uygur FN, Kadioglu I, Boz O, Mennan H (1999) Economic threshold of weeds and application in the world and Turkey. Bitki Korumada Ekonomik Zarar Esigi Modelleri ve Uygulamas. Workshop, 8-9 September 1999. Samsun, Turkey. pp 170–225

  • Waheed A, Qureshi R, Jakhar GS, Tareen H (2009) Weed community dynamics in wheat crop of District Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan. Pak J Bot 41:247–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson DJ (1947) Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops: II. The effect of varying nutrient supply on net assimilation rate and leaf area. Ann Bot 11:375–407

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks GA, Nordquist PT, Baenziger PS, Klein RN, Hammons RH, Watkins JE (2004) Winter wheat cultivar characteristics affect annual weed suppression. Weed Technol 18:988–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang WEI, Webster EP, Lanclos DY, Geaghan JP (2003) Effect of weed interference duration and weed–free period on glyphosinate–resistant rice. Weed Technol 17:876–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimdahl RL (2004) Weed–crop competition: a review, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimdahl RL (2007) Fundamentals of weed science, 3rd edn. Elsevier Inc, U.S.A, pp 151–156

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetic Improvement, MOA Key Laboratory of Crop Ecophysiology and Farming System in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430070, China

    Saddam Hussain & Shah Fahad

  2. Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38040, Punjab, Pakistan

    Saddam Hussain, Abdul Khaliq, Amar Matloob & Asif Tanveer

Authors
  1. Saddam Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Khaliq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amar Matloob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shah Fahad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Asif Tanveer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saddam Hussain.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hussain, S., Khaliq, A., Matloob, A. et al. Interference and economic threshold level of little seed canary grass in wheat under different sowing times. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 441–449 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3304-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3304-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation