Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:16:59.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Interference in Canola (Brassica campestris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John T. O'Donovan
John T. O'Donovan*
Affiliation:
Weed Sci., Alberta Environ. Centre, VegreviUe, Alberta TOB 4L0
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of quackgrass shoot populations shortly after emergence, and dry weight at harvest on yield of canola were determined in four field experiments conducted near Vegreville, Alberta in 1986 and 1988. A hyperbolic model described the data well in most cases and indicated little intraspecific quackgrass interference among quackgrass shoots until populations exceeded 200 shoots m−2. Magnitudes of predicted canola yield losses among experiments were close, even though quackgrass-free yields varied. A pooled hyperbolic equation, based on shoot density, predicted that an intermediate quackgrass infestation of 50 to 100 shoots m−2 would reduce canola yield by 18 to 32%. An economic threshold model based on the hyperbolic model provides a means of estimating when control of quackgrass with herbicides is economical.

Keywords

Canola, Brassica campestris L. ‘Tobin′quackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski. ♯3 AGRREEconomic thresholdhyperbolic modelAGRRE

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 1991, pp. 397 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density-Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Cousens, R., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1985. To spray or not to spray: the theory behind the practice. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds 3:671–678.Google Scholar
3. Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dew, D. A. and Keys, C. H. 1976. An index of competition for estimating loss of rape due to wild oats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:1005–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hodgson, J. M. 1974. Quackgrass control and crop protection with herbicides. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 27:17–19.Google Scholar
6. Ivany, J. A. 1981. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control with fall-applied glyphosate and other herbicides. Weed Sci. 29:382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Linscott, D. L. and Vaughan, R. 1989. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) seed production. Weed Technol. 3:102–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Marra, M. C. and Carlson, G. A. 1983. An economic threshold model of weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:604–609.Google Scholar
9. O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, A. K., Kirkland, K. J., and de St. Remy, E. A. 1988. Volunteer barley (Hordeum vulgare) interference in canola (Brassica campestris and B. napus). Weed Sci. 36:734–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. O'Donovan, J. T., Kirkland, K. J., and Sharma, A. K. 1989. Canola yield and profitability as influenced by volunteer wheat infestations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:1235–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. O'Sullivan, P. A., Weiss, G. M., and Kossatz, V. C. 1985. Indices of competition for estimating rapeseed yield loss due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Penn, D. J. and Lynch, G. M. 1981. Effect of decaying couchgrass rhizomes on the growth of barley. J. Appl. Ecol. 18:669–674.Google Scholar
14. Rioux, R. 1982. Measuring quackgrass interference in barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. 1988. Pages 675–712 in SAS/STAT™ User's Guide. Release 6.03 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
16. Streibig, J. C., Combellak, T. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1985. Dew's Alberta weed survey 1973–1977. Weed Survey Ser. Publ. 85–3. Agric. Can., Regina, 134 pp.Google Scholar
18. Werner, P. and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. 24. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:905–919.Google Scholar
19. Wilson, B. J. and Peters, N.C.B. 1982. Some studies of competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. 1. The influence of A. fatua on yield of barley. Weed Res. 22:143–148.Google Scholar
20. Wyse, D. L. and Spitzmueller, J. 1984. Quackgrass control in soybeans with sethoxydim, fluazifop and haloxyfop—a three year summary. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:28.Google Scholar