Weed suppression and yield of thirteen spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties grown in an organic system

Warianty tytułu

PL

Zdolności konkurencyjne w stosunku do chwastów oraz plonowanie 13 odmian pszenicy jarej (Triticum vulgare L.) uprawianych w systemie ekologicznym

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of this study was to determine the relationships between morphological features, canopy parameters, weed infestation, and grain yield of spring wheat varieties. The study was conducted in the period 2011–2013, on fields managed organically at the Experimental Station of The Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute, Osiny, Poland. Thirteen spring wheat varieties were sown in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Weed density and dry matter production were estimated as well biometric features of the wheat varieties at tillering (BBCH 22–24) and dough (BBCH 85–87) stages. The analyses of variance showed that the year had a stronger effect than varieties on the level of weed infestation. Pearson’s correlation analysis indicated that weed number was influenced by the height of wheat plants and their aboveground biomass at the tillering stage and additionally by number of tillers at the dough stage. A significant correlation (r = −0.328, siginfficant at p < 0.05) was shown between the number of weeds and wheat grain yield. Different morphological features and canopy parameters influenced the competitive abilities of the spring wheat varieties tested. A cluster analysis detected one set of varieties with the largest (‘Bombona’, ‘Brawura’, ‘Hewilla’, ‘Kandela’, ‘Katoda’, ‘Łagwa’, and ‘Żura’) and another with the smallest (‘Monsun’, ‘Ostka Smolicka’, and ‘Parabola’) competitive abilities against weeds. The main outcome of the research is information for farmers as to which varieties are highly competitive against weeds and also high yielding. Among the varieties with the highest competitiveness, Triticum aestivum ‘Żura’ was the highest yielder (3.82 t ha−1 on average), whereas ‘Bombona’ yielded only at an average level (3.03 t ha−1). The suppressive ability of spring wheat varieties against weeds and yield potential should be both taken into account in the selection of varieties suitable for an organic farming system where weed control is absent.

PL

Celem badań była ocena zależności między cechami morfologicznymi, parametrami łanu a zachwaszczeniem i plonowaniem odmian pszenicy jarej (Triticum vulgare L.). Badania zostały przeprowadzone w latach 2011–2013, na polach uprawianych w systemie ekologicznym, w Zakładzie Doświadczalnym Instytutu Uprawy Nawożenia i Gleboznawstwa – Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego w Osinach, Polska (51°28' N, 22°04' E). Trzynaście odmian pszenicy jarej wysiewano w układzie całkowitej randomizacji w 4 powtórzeniach. Liczebność chwastów i ich sucha masa, jak również cechy biometryczne odmian pszenicy były oceniane w fazie krzewienia (BBCH 22–24) i dojrzałości (BBCH 85–87). Na podstawie analizy wariancji stwierdzono, że rok badań w większym stopniu wpływał na poziom zachwaszczenia niż odmiana. Analiza korelacji Pearsona wykazała, że liczba chwastów zależała od wysokości odmian pszenicy i masy części nadziemnych łanu w fazie krzewienia oraz dodatkowo rozkrzewienia w fazie dojrzałości. Stwierdzono istotną korelację między liczbą chwastów i plonem ziarna pszenicy (r = −0.328, p < 0.05). Różne cechy morfologiczne i parametry łanu wpływały na zdolności konkurencyjne testowanych odmian pszenicy jarej. Analiza skupień podzieliła odmiany na grupę o największych (‘Bombona’, ‘Brawura’, ‘Hewilla’, ‘Kandela’, ‘Katoda’, ‘Łagwa’, ‘Żura’) i najmniejszych (‘Monsun’, ‘Ostka Smolicka’, ‘Parabola’) zdolnościach konkurencyjnych w stosunku do chwastów. Głównym osiągnięciem badań jest informacja dla rolników, które odmiany pszenicy jarej cechują się dużą konkurencyjnością w stosunku do chwastów i jednocześnie plonują na wysokim poziomie. Wśród odmian o największej konkurencyjności w stosunku do chwastów najwyżej plonowała odmiana ‘Żura’ (średnio 3.82 t ha−1), natomiast ‘Bombona’ plonowała na średnim poziomie (3.03 t ha−1). Zarówno zdolności supresyjne odmian pszenicy jarej w stosunku do chwastów, jak i potencjał plonowania powinny być brane pod uwagę przy doborze odmian do rolnictwa ekologicznego.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Agrobotanica
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 70
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: Article 1721 [16p.], fig.,ref.

Twórcy

Bibliografia

• 1. Leistrumaite A, Liatukas Ž, Razbadauskiene K. The spring cereals traits of soil cover, disease resistance and yielding essential for organic growing. Agronomy Research. 2009;7(1):374–380.
• 2. Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 of 28th June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 [Internet]. 2017 [citied 2017 Mar 15]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0834
• 3. Bond W, Grundy AC. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res. 2001;41:383–405. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2001.00246.x
• 4. Feledyn-Szewczyk B, Kuś J, Jończyk K, Stalenga J. The suitability of different winter and spring varieties for cultivation in organic farming. In: Pilipavičius V, editor. Organic agriculture towards sustainability. Rijeka: Intech; 2014. p. 197–225. https://doi.org/10.5772/58351
• 5. Hoad S, Topp C, Davies K. Selection of cereals for weed suppression in organic agriculture: a method based on cultivar sensitivity to weed growth. Euphytica. 2008;163(3):355–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9710-9
• 6. Przystalski M, Osman A, Thiemt EM, Rolland B, Ericsson L, Østergård H, et al. Comparing the performance of cereal varieties in organic and non-organic cropping systems in different European countries. Euphytica. 2008;163:417–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9715-4
• 7. Wolfe MS, Baresel JP, Desclaux D, Goldringer I, Hoad S, Kovacs G, et al. Developments in breeding cereals for organic agriculture. Euphytica. 2008;163(3):323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-008-9690-9
• 8. Lammerts van Bueren ET, Jones SS, Tamm L, Murphy KM, Myers JR, Leifert C, et al. The need to breed crop varieties suitable for organic farming, using wheat, tomato and broccoli as examples: a review. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2011;58:193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2010.04.001
• 9. Tamm I, Tamm Ü, Ingver A. Spring cereals performance in organic and conventional cultivation. Agronomy Research. 2009;7(1):522–527.
• 10. Christensen S. Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Res. 1995;35:241–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1995.tb01786.x
• 11. Cosser ND, Gooding JM, Thompson AJ, Froud-Williams RJ. Competitive ability and tolerance of organically grown wheat cultivars to natural weed infestations. Ann Appl Biol. 1997;130(3):523–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1997.tb07679.x
• 12. Lemerle D, Smith A, Verbeek B, Koetz E, Lockley P, Martin P. Incremental crop tolerance to weeds: a measure for selecting competitive ability in Australian wheat. Euphytica. 2006;149:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-005-9056-5
• 13. Didon UME. Variation between barley cultivars in early response to weed competition. J Agron Crop Sci. 2002;188:176–184. https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2002.00566.x
• 14. Bertholdsson NO. Early vigour and allelopathy – two useful traits for enhanced barley and wheat competitiveness against weeds. Weed Res. 2005;45:94–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2004.00442.x
• 15. O’Donovan JT, Blackshaw RE, Harker KN, Clayton GW, McKenzie R. Variable plant establishment contributes to differences in competitiveness with wild oat among wheat and barley varieties. Can J Plant Sci. 2005;85(4):771–776. https://doi.org/10.4141/P04-190
• 16. Liatukas Ž, Leistrumite A. Selection of winter wheat for organic growing. Agronomy Research. 2009;7(1):381–386.
• 17. Feledyn-Szewczyk B. The influence of morphological features of spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) and common wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare) varieties on the competitiveness against weeds in organic farming system. J Food Agric Environ. 2013;11(1):416–421.
• 18. O’Donovan JT, Blackshaw RE, Harker KN, Clayton GW, Moyer JR, Dosdall LM, et al. Integrated approaches to managing weeds in spring-sown crops in western Canada. Crop Prot. 2007;26:390–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2005.09.018
• 19. Dhima K, Vasilakoglou I, Gatsis T, Eleftherohorinos I. Competitive interactions of fifty barley cultivars with Avena sterilis and Asperugo procumbens. Field Crops Res. 2010;117:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.02.004
• 20. Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species – 29th complete edition. Official Journal of the European Union. 2010;53:CA337/1.
• 21. Food and Agriculture Organization. World reference base for soil resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2014. (World Soil Resources Reports; vol 106).
• 22. Tottman DR, Broad H. The decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Ann Appl Biol. 1987;110:441–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1987.tb03275.x
• 23. Badowski M, Domaradzki K, Filipiak K, Franek M, Gołębiowska H, Kieloch R, et al. Metodyka doświadczeń biologicznej oceny herbicydów, bioregulatorów i adiuwantów. Cz. 1. Doświadczenia polowe. Puławy: IUNG-PIB; 2001.
• 24. Rutkowski L. Klucz do oznaczania roślin naczyniowych Polski niżowej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; 2007.
• 25. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journa 1948;27:379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
• 26. Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949;168:668. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
• 27. Lepš J, Šmilauer P. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615146
• 28. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power; 2002.
• 29. Deveikyte I, Semaškiene R, Leistrumaite A. The competition between cereals and weeds under the conditions of organic agriculture. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture. 2008;95:3–15.
• 30. Murphy K, Dawson J, Jones SS. Relationship among phenotypic growth traits, yield and weed suppression in spring wheat landraces and modern cultivars. Field Crops Res. 2008;105:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.08.004
• 31. Wicks GA, Ramsel RE, Nordquist PT, Smith JW, Challaiah RE. Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agron J. 1986;78:59–62.
• 32. Satorre EH, Snaydon RW. A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 1992;32:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1992.tb01861.x
• 33. Worthington M, Reberg-Horton C. Breeding cereal crops for enhanced weed suppression: optimizing allelopathy and competitive ability. J Chem Ecol. 2013;39(2):213–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-013-0247-6
• 34. Hucl P. Response to weed control by four spring wheat genotypes differing in competitive ability. Can J Plant Sci. 1998;78:171–173. https://doi.org/10.4141/P97-029
• 35. Wicks GA, Nordquist PT, Baenziger PS, Klein RN, Roger HH, Watkins JE. Winter wheat cultivar characteristics affect annual weed suppression. Weed Technol. 2004;18(4):988–998. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-03-158R1
• 36. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature. 2012;485:229–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5586/aa.1721