Wild Oat (<i>Avena fatua</i>) and Spring Barley (<i>Hordeum vulgare</i>) Growth and Development in Monoculture and Mixed Culture

Morishita, Don W.; Thill, Donald C.

doi:10.1017/s0043174500074439

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The critical weed:barley interference period study carried out in 1996–97 showed clearly that interference between weed and barley started in early April, in agreement with observations reported by Morishita & Thill (1988). The lower growth rate (slope b) determined from the regression equations for cvs Klipper and Plaisant grown in competition with either weed species, shows that both weeds were more competitive against these two cultivars and this was the reason for their greatest growth reduction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…ludoviciana caused 19–52% yield losses of four barley cultivars. Morishita & Thill (1988) reported that yield and ear number of spring barley were significantly reduced by the presence until harvest of 150 A. fatua plants m −2 . Afentouli & Eleftherohorinos (1996) also found that the presence of either P. minor or P. brachystachys Link until harvest did not have any significant effect on yield components of cv.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…due to competition with Avena and Phalaris spp. as affected by density, timing of emergence and removal, barley and wheat density, cultivar selection and environmental factors (Torner et al ., 1984; Morishita & Thill, 1988; Cudney et al ., 1989; Kirkland, 1993; Afentouli & Eleftherohorinos, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interference between Avena sterilis, Phalaris minor and five barley cultivars

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments were carried out in Northern Greece from 1994 to 1997 to study interference between Avena sterilis L. or Phalaris minor Retz. and five autumn‐sown barley cultivars. Weed:crop interference began in early April. Avena sterilis at 120 plants m−2 showed greater interference against barley than P. minor at 400 plants m−2. The greatest grain yield and ear number reduction due to interference by either weed was recorded for cvs Klipper and Plaisant, and the least for cv. Athinaida; with cvs Carina and Thermi intermediate. Yield reduction due to A. sterilis for cvs Athinaida, Carina, Thermi, Klipper and Plaisant was 8, 16, 27, 61 and 67%, respectively, while corresponding losses to P. minor were 1, 8, 14, 45 and 55%. These results clearly indicate that growth and consequently yield components of cv. Athinaida were unaffected by the presence of either weed species, while those of cv. Carina were affected by A. sterilis, but not by P. minor. However, dry weight and panicle number of both weed species were severely reduced by interference with cvs Carina, Athinaida and Thermi compared with cvs Klipper and Plaisant. The order of interference of the five barley cultivars tested against A. sterilis and P. minor was Athinaida > Carina > Thermi > Klipper ≥ Plaisant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interference between Avena sterilis, Phalaris minor and five barley cultivars

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wild oat is adapted to a wide range of geographical areas and climates and is one of the 12 most successful colonizing species in the world (Allard 1965). Morishita and Thill (1988) estimated that 11,000,000 ha in the United States contain wild oat populations that are responsible for causing economic losses of 1 billion dollars.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Alberta, Canada, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield was reduced between 55 and 85% when wild oat emerged prior to wheat emergence (O'Donovan et al 1985). Yield losses in barley from competition with wild oat ranged from 30 to 72%, depending on wild oat density (Chancellor and Peters 1976; Morishita and Thill 1988;Wilson and Peters 1982). Lack of wild oat control also reduces harvesting efficiency and the quality of cereal crops.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Mesosulfuron Rate and Formulation on Wild Oat (Avena Fatua) Control and Malt Barley Tolerance

King¹

2007

Weed Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments were conducted in 2005 and 2006 near Huntley, Montana to evaluate two formulations of mesosulfuron-methyl for the control of wild oat in malt barley. The two formulations differed due to the amount of safener, mefenpyr-diethyl, that each contained. Formulation 1 and 2 contained mesosulfuron-methyl and mefenpyr-diethyl at a 1 : 2 and 1 : 6 ratio, respectively. The two formulations were applied alone at two rates or in combination with other small grain herbicides that are typically used for broadleaf weed control. The low and high rate of formulation 1 contained 7.8 and 10.1 g ai/ha of mesosulfuron-methyl and 15.6 and 20.2 g ai/ha of mefenpyr-diethyl, respectively. The low and high rate of formulation 2 contained 2.5 and 3.1 g ai/ha of mesosulfuron-methyl and 15 and 18.6 g ai/ha of mefenpyr-diethyl, respectively. These treatments were compared to a standard treatment of fenoxaprop and a nontreated control. In 2005, formulation 2 applied alone at the low and high rates caused barley injury of 7 and 11% at 21 days after treatment (DAT) and 4 and 7% at 56 DAT, respectively. Applications of formulation 1 caused barley injury that was 9 and 17 percentage points greater at 21 DAT and 12 and 18 percentage points greater at 56 DAT than barley injury from applications of formulation 2 when these herbicides were applied alone at the low and high rate, respectively, in 2005. In both years, formulation 1 applied alone at either rate injured barley more than fenoxaprop at 21 and 56 DAT. In both years, formulation 1 and 2 applied alone controlled wild oat between 85 and 96% at 21 DAT and between 92 and 98% at 56 DAT. Regardless of rate, wild oat control with either formulation was similar to that provided by fenoxaprop at 56 DAT. In 2005 and 2006, barley yield was equivalent between treatments of formulation 1 or 2 and that produced by barley treated with fenoxaprop. No difference in the percentage of plump kernels occurred between treatments of formulation 2 and fenoxaprop. The percentage of plump kernels was reduced 6 to 7 percentage points with treatments containing formulation 1 compared to treatments containing formulation 2. Overall, formulation 2 was effective for the control of wild oat in malt barley. Low levels of malt barley injury occurred with this treatment; however, barley successfully recovered by harvest, and yield and kernel size were equivalent to barley treated with fenoxaprop.

show abstract

The Effect of Weed Density

Zimdahl¹

2004

Weed‐Crop Competition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild Oat (Avena fatua) and Spring Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Growth and Development in Monoculture and Mixed Culture

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

Interference between Avena sterilis, Phalaris minor and five barley cultivars

Interference between Avena sterilis, Phalaris minor and five barley cultivars

Effect of Mesosulfuron Rate and Formulation on Wild Oat (Avena Fatua) Control and Malt Barley Tolerance

The Effect of Weed Density

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About