Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica

The Journal of Czech University of Life Sciences Prague

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.398
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.688

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1805-9430
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Effects Of Spring Herbicide Treatments On Winter Wheat Growth And Grain Yield*

P. Hamouz
  • Corresponding author
  • Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resource, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ K. Hamouzová
  • Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resource, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ K. Novotná
  • Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resource, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-04-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sab-2015-0010

Abstract

Herbicides provide a low-cost solution for protecting crops from significant yield losses. If weed infestations are below damage thresholds, however, then herbicide application is unnecessary and can even lead to yield loss. A small-plot field trial was conducted to examine the effect of herbicides on winter wheat yields. Weeds were removed manually from the trial area before herbicide application. Twenty-four treatments were tested in four replications. Treatment 1 consisted of an untreated weed-free control, whereas the other treatments comprised applications of the following herbicides and their combinations: metsulfuron-methyl + tribenuron-methyl (4.95 + 9.99 g ha−1), pinoxaden (30 g ha−1), fluroxypyr (175 g ha−1), and clopyralid (120 g ha−1). Water (250 l ha−1) or a urea-ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution (UAN, 120.5 l ha−1) was used as the herbicide carrier. Crop injury 30 days after treatment and yield loss were recorded. Results showed minor crop injury by herbicides and their combinations when applied without UAN and moderate injury caused by UAN in combination with herbicides. Yield losses reached 5.3% and 4.3% in those treatments where all of the tested herbicides were applied with and without UAN, respectively. The effect of all treatments on crop yield was, however, statistically insignificant (P = 0.934).

Key words: weed control; herbicides; phytotoxicity; cereals; yield loss

REFERENCES

  • Belz RG, Cedergreen N, Duke SO (2011): Herbicide hormesis – can it be useful in crop production? Weed Research, 51, 321–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2011.00862.x.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cedergreen N (2008): Herbicides can stimulate plant growth. Weed Research, 48, 1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2008.00646.x.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cobb AH, Reade PH (2010): Herbicides and plant physiology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. doi: 10.1002/9781444327793.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cole DJ (1994): Detoxification and activation of agrochemicals in plants. Pesticide Science, 42, 209–222. doi: 10.1002/ps.2780420309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cummins I, Burnet M, Edwards R (2001): Biochemical characterisation of esterases active in hydrolysing xenobiotics in wheat and competing weeds. Physiologia Plantarum, 113, 477–485. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2001.1130406.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dastgheib F, Held RJ, Namjou S (1994): The mechanism of differential response of wheat cultivars to chlorsulfuron. Weed Research, 34, 299–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1994.tb01998.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Devine M, Duke SO, Fedtke C (1993): Physiology of herbicide action. PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar

  • Dixon DP, Cummins I, Cole DJ, Edwards R (1998): Glutathione-mediated detoxification systems in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 1, 258–266. doi: 10.1016/S1369-5266(98)80114-3.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dixon DP, Hawkins T, Hussey PJ, Edwards R (2009): Enzyme activities and subcellular localization of members of the Arabidopsis glutathione transferase superfamily. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60, 1207–1218. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern365.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Geminiani E, Bucchi R, Rapparini G (2008): Selectivity of post-emergence herbicides on soft wheat. In: Giornate Fitopatologiche, Cervia, Italy, 391–398.Google Scholar

  • Hamouz P, Hamouzová K, Holec J, Tyšer L (2013): Impact of site-specific weed management on herbicide savings and winter wheat yield. Plant, Soil and Environment, 59, 101–107.Google Scholar

  • Hofer U, Muehlebach M, Hole S, Zoschke A (2006): Pinoxaden – for broad spectrum grass weed management in cereal crops. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, Special Issue 20, 989–995.Google Scholar

  • Kong L, Si J, Feng B, Li S, Wang F, Sayre K (2009): Differential responses of two types of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to autumn- and spring-applied mesosulfuron-methyl. Crop Protection, 28, 387–392. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.12.008.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kreuz K, Tommasini R, Martinoia E (1996): Old enzymes for a new job: herbicide detoxification in plants. Plant Physiology, 111, 349–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Nordmeyer H (2006): Patchy weed distribution and site-specific weed control in winter cereals. Precision Agriculture, 7, 219–231. doi: 10.1007/s11119-006-9015-8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • O'Sullivan PA, Kossatz VC (1984): Tolerance of Glenlea and Neepawa wheat to clopyralid. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 64, 1023–1025.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pasquer F, Ochsner U, Zarn J, Keller B (2006): Common and distinct gene expression patterns induced by the herbicides 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, cinidon-ethyl and tribenuron-methyl in wheat. Pest Management Science, 62, 1155–1167. doi: 10.1002/ps.1291.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rengel Z, Wheal MS (1997): Herbicide chlorsulfuron decreases growth of fine roots and micronutrient uptake in wheat genotypes. Journal of Experimental Botany, 48, 927–934. doi: 10.1093/jxb/48.4.927.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rew LJ, Cussans GW, Mugglestone MA, Miller PCH (1996): A technique for mapping the spatial distribution of Elymus repens, with estimates of the potential reduction in herbicide usage from patch spraying. Weed Research, 36, 283–292. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.1996.tb01658.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ritter C, Dicke D, Weis M, Oebel H, Piepho HP, Büchse A, Gerhards R (2008): An on-farm approach to quantify yield variation and to derive decision rules for site-specific weed management. Precision Agriculture, 9, 133–146. doi: 10.1007/s11119-008-9061-5.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sikkema PH, Brown L, Shropshire C, Soltani N (2007): Responses of three types of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to spring-applied post-emergence herbicides. Crop Protection, 26, 715–720. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2006.06.010.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Sosnoskie LM, Culpepper AS, York AC, Beam JB, MacRae AW (2009): Sequential applications for mesosulfuron and nitrogen needed in wheat. Weed Technology, 23, 404–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-09-019.1.Web of Science

  • Stahlman PW, Currie RS, El-Hamid MA (1997): Nitrogen carrier and surfactant increase foliar herbicide injury in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technology, 11, 7–12.Google Scholar

  • Wagner NC (2004): Wheat yield prediction modelling for localized optimization of fertilizer and herbicide application. Dissertation, Montana State University.Google Scholar

  • Wells GS (2008a): Florasulam + clopyralid for broad spectrum broadleaf weed control in winter cereals in southern Australia. In: Proc. 16th Australian Weeds Conference, North Queensland, Australia, 333–335.Google Scholar

  • Wells GS (2008b): Pyroxsulam for broad-spectrum weed control in wheat. In: Proc. 16th Australian Weeds Conference, North Queensland, Australia, 297–299.Google Scholar

  • Yuan JS, Tranel PJ, Stewart Jr. CN (2007): Non-target-site herbicide resistance: a family business. Trends in Plant Science, 12, 6–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2006.11.001.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-09-29

Accepted: 2014-12-07

Published Online: 2015-04-04

Published in Print: 2015-03-01


*Supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (Project No. QI111A184).


Citation Information: Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, ISSN (Online) 1805-9430, ISSN (Print) 1211-3174, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sab-2015-0010.

Export Citation

© P. Hamouz et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in