Loading…

Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation

Seed production of residual weed populations needs to be taken into account when estimating the long‐term impact of low‐input agronomic practices. The objective of this study was to measure the effects and interactions of crop, weed control, tillage practice and nutrient source on the seed productio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Weed research 2000-12, Vol.40 (6), p.535-547
Main Authors: Perron, F, Légère, A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743
container_end_page 547
container_issue 6
container_start_page 535
container_title Weed research
container_volume 40
creator Perron, F
Légère, A
description Seed production of residual weed populations needs to be taken into account when estimating the long‐term impact of low‐input agronomic practices. The objective of this study was to measure the effects and interactions of crop, weed control, tillage practice and nutrient source on the seed production of the dominant residual weed species in a maize/soyabean rotation at two sites: Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv. on a Sainte‐Rosalie clay and Chenopodium album L. on a Duravin clay loam. Seed production per unit area was estimated in each experimental unit. Weed seed production was greater under mechanical weed control compared with chemical weed control. In 1997, E. crus‐galli seed production reached over 326 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical weed control treatments, but averaged less than 500 seeds m–2 in the chemical weed control treatments. Chenopodium album produced in the range of 766 000 and 73 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical and chemical weed control treatments respectively. Very few or no weed seeds were produced in soyabean under chemical control. Tillage intensity and nutrient source did not affect seed production of either weed species, with the exception that E. crus‐galli produced more seeds in chisel than in mouldboard plough tillage in soyabean. Weed control method had more impact on seed production than tillage intensity and nutrient source in a maize/soyabean rotation.
doi_str_mv 10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00210.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1839926083</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1839926083</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc-LEzEUx4MoWFf_h4Dn6SaTTDoBL1LqKqwriNJjeJO8bFOnSZ3MYOvN_9yMleLRSxL4_niPTwihnC05k-p2v-RCNZXgLVvWjLElY3XRTk_I4io8JQvGpKj4Sqyekxc574tRKa0X5NfGe7RjpslTO6QjPUCERzxgHOlxADsGi0WMdGN3ISa76xMU45SrR-j7QCE6ut5hTMfkwnSg0HflzIiuxJObSkEJh0ihNIefeJvTGTqESIc0wiy-JM889Blf_b1vyNd3my_r99X9p7sP67f3lZVMsooz1iqwjefWtW0NHaykdg695kIq10jkmne6q1mtOHfaYq2tdR6ZklqupLghry-9Za_vE-bR7NM0xDLS8FZoXSvWiuJqL64CI-cBvTkO4QDD2XBmZuBmb2auZuZqZuDmD3Bz-mcAZAu9HyDakK_5VtVc6uJ6c3H9CD2e_7vdbD9vyqPEq0s85BFP1zgM34wqv9uY7cOdaba60R8ftNmK35Ito24</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1839926083</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Perron, F ; Légère, A</creator><creatorcontrib>Perron, F ; Légère, A</creatorcontrib><description>Seed production of residual weed populations needs to be taken into account when estimating the long‐term impact of low‐input agronomic practices. The objective of this study was to measure the effects and interactions of crop, weed control, tillage practice and nutrient source on the seed production of the dominant residual weed species in a maize/soyabean rotation at two sites: Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv. on a Sainte‐Rosalie clay and Chenopodium album L. on a Duravin clay loam. Seed production per unit area was estimated in each experimental unit. Weed seed production was greater under mechanical weed control compared with chemical weed control. In 1997, E. crus‐galli seed production reached over 326 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical weed control treatments, but averaged less than 500 seeds m–2 in the chemical weed control treatments. Chenopodium album produced in the range of 766 000 and 73 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical and chemical weed control treatments respectively. Very few or no weed seeds were produced in soyabean under chemical control. Tillage intensity and nutrient source did not affect seed production of either weed species, with the exception that E. crus‐galli produced more seeds in chisel than in mouldboard plough tillage in soyabean. Weed control method had more impact on seed production than tillage intensity and nutrient source in a maize/soyabean rotation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1737</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-3180</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00210.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WEREAT</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; chisel plough tillage ; Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance ; Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns ; low-input agriculture ; manure ; mechanical weed control ; Parasitic plants. Weeds ; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed research, 2000-12, Vol.40 (6), p.535-547</ispartof><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=862149$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Perron, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Légère, A</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation</title><title>Weed research</title><description>Seed production of residual weed populations needs to be taken into account when estimating the long‐term impact of low‐input agronomic practices. The objective of this study was to measure the effects and interactions of crop, weed control, tillage practice and nutrient source on the seed production of the dominant residual weed species in a maize/soyabean rotation at two sites: Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv. on a Sainte‐Rosalie clay and Chenopodium album L. on a Duravin clay loam. Seed production per unit area was estimated in each experimental unit. Weed seed production was greater under mechanical weed control compared with chemical weed control. In 1997, E. crus‐galli seed production reached over 326 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical weed control treatments, but averaged less than 500 seeds m–2 in the chemical weed control treatments. Chenopodium album produced in the range of 766 000 and 73 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical and chemical weed control treatments respectively. Very few or no weed seeds were produced in soyabean under chemical control. Tillage intensity and nutrient source did not affect seed production of either weed species, with the exception that E. crus‐galli produced more seeds in chisel than in mouldboard plough tillage in soyabean. Weed control method had more impact on seed production than tillage intensity and nutrient source in a maize/soyabean rotation.</description><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>chisel plough tillage</subject><subject>Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance</subject><subject>Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns</subject><subject>low-input agriculture</subject><subject>manure</subject><subject>mechanical weed control</subject><subject>Parasitic plants. Weeds</subject><subject>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0043-1737</issn><issn>1365-3180</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkc-LEzEUx4MoWFf_h4Dn6SaTTDoBL1LqKqwriNJjeJO8bFOnSZ3MYOvN_9yMleLRSxL4_niPTwihnC05k-p2v-RCNZXgLVvWjLElY3XRTk_I4io8JQvGpKj4Sqyekxc574tRKa0X5NfGe7RjpslTO6QjPUCERzxgHOlxADsGi0WMdGN3ISa76xMU45SrR-j7QCE6ut5hTMfkwnSg0HflzIiuxJObSkEJh0ihNIefeJvTGTqESIc0wiy-JM889Blf_b1vyNd3my_r99X9p7sP67f3lZVMsooz1iqwjefWtW0NHaykdg695kIq10jkmne6q1mtOHfaYq2tdR6ZklqupLghry-9Za_vE-bR7NM0xDLS8FZoXSvWiuJqL64CI-cBvTkO4QDD2XBmZuBmb2auZuZqZuDmD3Bz-mcAZAu9HyDakK_5VtVc6uJ6c3H9CD2e_7vdbD9vyqPEq0s85BFP1zgM34wqv9uY7cOdaba60R8ftNmK35Ito24</recordid><startdate>200012</startdate><enddate>200012</enddate><creator>Perron, F</creator><creator>Légère, A</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Science</general><general>Blackwell Scientific Publications</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JQCIK</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200012</creationdate><title>Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation</title><author>Perron, F ; Légère, A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>chisel plough tillage</topic><topic>Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance</topic><topic>Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns</topic><topic>low-input agriculture</topic><topic>manure</topic><topic>mechanical weed control</topic><topic>Parasitic plants. Weeds</topic><topic>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Perron, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Légère, A</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 33</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Weed research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Perron, F</au><au>Légère, A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation</atitle><jtitle>Weed research</jtitle><date>2000-12</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>535</spage><epage>547</epage><pages>535-547</pages><issn>0043-1737</issn><eissn>1365-3180</eissn><coden>WEREAT</coden><abstract>Seed production of residual weed populations needs to be taken into account when estimating the long‐term impact of low‐input agronomic practices. The objective of this study was to measure the effects and interactions of crop, weed control, tillage practice and nutrient source on the seed production of the dominant residual weed species in a maize/soyabean rotation at two sites: Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv. on a Sainte‐Rosalie clay and Chenopodium album L. on a Duravin clay loam. Seed production per unit area was estimated in each experimental unit. Weed seed production was greater under mechanical weed control compared with chemical weed control. In 1997, E. crus‐galli seed production reached over 326 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical weed control treatments, but averaged less than 500 seeds m–2 in the chemical weed control treatments. Chenopodium album produced in the range of 766 000 and 73 000 seeds m–2 in mechanical and chemical weed control treatments respectively. Very few or no weed seeds were produced in soyabean under chemical control. Tillage intensity and nutrient source did not affect seed production of either weed species, with the exception that E. crus‐galli produced more seeds in chisel than in mouldboard plough tillage in soyabean. Weed control method had more impact on seed production than tillage intensity and nutrient source in a maize/soyabean rotation.</abstract><cop>Oxford UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><doi>10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00210.x</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1737
ispartof Weed research, 2000-12, Vol.40 (6), p.535-547
issn 0043-1737
1365-3180
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1839926083
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Biological and medical sciences
chisel plough tillage
Cropping systems. Cultivation. Soil tillage
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General agronomy. Plant production
Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance
Generalities. Cropping systems and patterns
low-input agriculture
manure
mechanical weed control
Parasitic plants. Weeds
Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection
Weeds
title Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T22%3A43%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20crop%20management%20practices%20on%20Echinochloa%20crus-galli%20and%20Chenopodium%20album%20seed%20production%20in%20a%20maize/soyabean%20rotation&rft.jtitle=Weed%20research&rft.au=Perron,%20F&rft.date=2000-12&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=535&rft.epage=547&rft.pages=535-547&rft.issn=0043-1737&rft.eissn=1365-3180&rft.coden=WEREAT&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00210.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1839926083%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4040-10086ac5f1cd882aba749ddef91346d54e191b9b202611d9ce29ccdfe06494743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1839926083&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true