1996
DOI: 10.4141/cjps96-152
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) response to field pea (Pisum sativum) cultivar and seeding rate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
1
19
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For both cultivars, 20 wild mustard plants m -2 reduced seed yields from 2 to 35% at both seeding rates. In field studies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, field pea cultivars that had both long vines and rapid canopy development (leaf area index) were more competitive with wild mustard than those with short vines and slow canopy development (Wall and Townley-Smith 1996). Wild mustard density was affected in 2 of 4 yr by cultivar selection, whereas weed biomass was affected in 3 of 4 yr. Cultivars that most effectively reduced wild mustard density or biomass had the lowest yield losses.…”
Section: Economic Importancementioning
confidence: 98%
“…For both cultivars, 20 wild mustard plants m -2 reduced seed yields from 2 to 35% at both seeding rates. In field studies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, field pea cultivars that had both long vines and rapid canopy development (leaf area index) were more competitive with wild mustard than those with short vines and slow canopy development (Wall and Townley-Smith 1996). Wild mustard density was affected in 2 of 4 yr by cultivar selection, whereas weed biomass was affected in 3 of 4 yr. Cultivars that most effectively reduced wild mustard density or biomass had the lowest yield losses.…”
Section: Economic Importancementioning
confidence: 98%
“…Most conventional seeding rate studies are performed in weedfree conditions. One exception was a pea seeding rate study by Wall and Townley-Smith (1996) where wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) was seeded with the crop. Weed emergence 10 d prior to crop emergence corresponded to an increase in the slope of the curve that described the yield-density response as compared to weed emergence 2 d prior to crop emergence.…”
Section: Grain Yieldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Field pea is known to be poorly competitive with weeds (Wall et al 1991;Wall and Townley-Smith 1996;Harker 2001). Yield losses due to weed interference can be as high as 80% (Boerboom and Young 1995;Grevsen 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Le pois sec n'est pas une culture très compétitive envers les mauvaises herbes. Des densités de peuplement élevées ont donc permis à la culture d'être plus compétitive et de réduire la biomasse des mauvaises herbes (TownleySmith et Wright 1994;Wall et Townley-Smith 1996). Au Canada, les densités de peuplement recommandées pour la culture du pois sec varient selon les provinces.…”
unclassified