Effects of long-term reduced tillage on weed infestation of pea (Pisum sativum L.)

Andrzej Woźniak, Myroslawa Soroka

Abstract


The study evaluated weed infestation of pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivated under conditions of conventional (CT), reduced (RT) and herbicide tillage (HT). It demonstrated the highest weed density per m2 in plots with the herbicide (HT) and reduced (RT) systems and significantly lower weed infestation in plots cultivated in the conventional system (CT). In addition, more weeds occurred at the third leaf stage (13/14 in BBCH scale) than at the pod development stage (73/74 BBCH) of pea. The highest biomass was produced by weeds in the herbicide system (HT), a lower one – in the reduced system (RT), and the lowest one – in the conventional system (CT). The air-dry weight of weeds depended also on pea development stage. At the pod development stage (73/74 BBCH), the air-dry weight of weeds was significantly higher than at the third leaf stage (13/14 BBCH). The tillage system was also observed to influence the species composition of weeds. This trait was also affected by the period of weed infestation assessment. At the third leaf stage of pea (13/14 BBCH), there occurred 26 weed species, including 24 annual ones. The most abundant species included: Chenopodium album L., Stellaria media (L.) Vill., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Med., Matricaria inodora L., Thlaspi arvense L., and Fallopia convolvulus (L.) A. Löve. At the pod development stage (73/74 BBCH), the pea crop was colonized by 24 weed species, including 3 perennial ones. At this stage the predominant species included: Avena fatua L., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Papaver rhoeas L., Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.B., Matricaria inodora L., and Galeopsis tetrahit L.

Keywords


Pisum sativum L.; tillage system; weeds number; air-dry weight of weeds; species composition

Full Text:

PDF

References


Wesołowski A, Woźniak A. Present and potential weed infestation of spring cereals in different cropping system. Acta Agrobot. 2001; 54(1): 175–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/aa.2001.015

Gruber S, Claupein W. Effect of tillage intensity on weed infestation in organic farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2009; 105(1): 104–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.06.001

Woźniak A. Weed infestation of pea (Pisum sativum L.) crop under the conditions of plough and ploughless tillage. Acta Sci Pol Hortorum Cultus. 2012; 11(2): 253–262.

Knežević M, Baličević R, Ranogajec L. Influence of soil tillage and low herbicide doses on weed dry weight and cereal crop yields. Herbologia. 2009; 10(1): 79–88.

Lundkvist A. Effects of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals. Weed Res. 2009; 49(4): 409–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00718.x

Brandsæter LO, Bakken AK, Mangerud K, Riley H, Eltun R, Fykse H. Effects of tractor weight, wheel placement and depth of ploughing on the infestation of perennial weeds in organically farmed cereals. Eur J Agron. 2011; 34(4): 239–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.001

Lahmar R. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe. Land Use Policy. 2010; 27(1): 4–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.001

Davis AS, Renner KA, Gross KL. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 2005; 53(3): 296–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-04-182

Peigné J, Ball BC, Roger-Estrade J, David C. Is conservation tillage suitable for organic farming? A review. Soil Use Manag. 2007; 23(2): 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00082.x

Tuesca D, Puricelli E, Papa JC. A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems. Weed Res. 2001; 41(4): 369–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2001.00245.x

Tørresen KS, Skuterud R. Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. IV. Changes in the weed flora and weed seedbank. Crop Prot. 2002; 21(3): 179–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00081-3

Cardina J, Herms CP, Doohan DJ. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 2002; 50(4): 448–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0448:CRATSE]2.0.CO;2

Chauhan BS, Gill GS, Preston C. Tillage system effects on weed ecology, herbicide activity and persistence: a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 2006; 46(12): 1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EA05291

Mohler C, Frisch J, Mcculloch C. Vertical movement of weed seed surrogates by tillage implements and natural processes. Soil Tillage Res. 2006; 86(1): 110–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.030

Małecka I, Blecharczyk A, Dobrzeniecki T. Zachwaszczenie zbóż ozimych w zależności od systemu uprawy roli. / Response of weed community in winter cereals to tillage system. Prog Plant Prot Post Ochr Roślin. 46(2): 253–255. (in Polish)

Faltyn U, Kordas L. Wpływ uprawy roli i czynników regenerujących stanowisko na zachwaszczenie pszenicy jarej. / Effect of tillage and field regeneration factors on weed infestation of spring wheats. Fragm Agron. 2009; 26(1): 19–24. (in Polish)

Kraska P, Pałys E. Weed infestation in canopy of spring barley in condition of different tillage systems and fertilization and plant protection levels. Acta Agrobot. 2006; 59(2): 323–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/aa.2006.086

Woźniak A. Weed infestation of a spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop under the conditions of plough and ploughless tillage. Acta Agrobot. 2011; 64(3): 133–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/aa.2011.040

IUSS Working Group WRB. World reference base for soil resources 2006. Rome: FAO; 2006.

Adamczewski K, Matysiak K. Klucz do określania faz rozwojowych roślin jednoliściennych i dwuliściennych w skali BBCH. Poznań: Institute of Plant Protection; 2002. (in Polish)