Influences of field pea (Pisum sativum) density on grain yield and competitiveness with annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in south-eastern Australia
D. Lemerle A B , B. Verbeek A and S. Diffey AA E. H. Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University), Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, PMB, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: deirdre.lemerle@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11) 1465-1472 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA04233
Submitted: 10 November 2004 Accepted: 28 February 2006 Published: 9 October 2006
Abstract
The variation in field pea grain yield and competitiveness with annual ryegrass due to crop density, row spacing and cultivar was determined to enable farmers to better manage weeds with cultural control tactics. Crop density varied with seeding rate, cultivar, row spacing and year. Higher seeding rates were required to reach equivalent plant densities in cv. Dinkum (short, semi-leafless) compared with cv. Dundale (tall, conventional-leaf), and at 36 cm compared with 18 cm row spacing. Field pea grain yield was reduced more at low crop densities, in Dinkum, at 36 cm row spacing, and in the presence of weeds. Percentage yield losses from weed competition were similar in both cultivars (about 70–80%) at a low density of 10 plants/m2 in 2 seasons. At higher crop densities Dinkum had a larger loss than Dundale (i.e. at 30 plants/m2 losses were 60 and 35%, respectively, compared with 50 and 5% at 60 plants/m2). Seasonal variation influenced the effect of crop density on yield loss from weeds. The percentage yield loss from weeds in 1993 ranged from about 90 to 40% at plant densities of 10 to 40 plants/m2, in contrast to 1995 when 40% yield loss occurred at all these densities. Ryegrass dry weight was reduced with increasing field pea density in both years, and in the tall more than the short cultivar in 1 year. Maintaining recommended field pea seeding rates has considerable financial benefits in both weed-free (around $100/ha) and weed-affected crops (to $400/ha). In weedy situations, integrating cultural practices such as higher seeding rates and choice of cultivar that enhance crop competitiveness will improve weed management in south-eastern Australia.
Acknowledgments
We thank Bruce Hinkley and Bill Littlewood for technical assistance.
Gill GS, Holmes JE
(1997) Efficacy of cultural control methods for combating herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum. Pesticide Science 51, 352–358.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Heatherly LG,
Spurlock SR, Elmore CD
(2002) Row width and weed management systems for early soybean production system plantings in the Mid Southern USA. Agronomy Journal 94, 1172–1180.
Heneise HK, Murray GA
(1980) Effect of row spacing on yield of spring sown Austrian field pea. Agronomy Journal 72, 369–371.
Johnston AM,
Clayton GW,
Lafond GP,
Harker KN,
Hogg TJ,
Johnson EN,
May WE, McConnell JT
(2002) Field pea seeding management. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 82, 639–644.
Lawson HM
(1983) Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the weeds. Weed Research 23, 27–38.
| Crossref |
Lawson HM, Topham PB
(1985) Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the weeds. Weed Research 25, 221–229.
| Crossref |
Lemerle D,
Verbeek B, Coombes N
(1995) Losses in grain yield of winter crops from Lolium annual competition depend on cultivar and season. Weed Research 35, 503–509.
| Crossref |
Lemerle D,
Cousens RD,
Gill GS,
Peltzer SJ,
Moerkerk M,
Murphy CE,
Collins D, Cullis BR
(2004) Reliability of higher seeding rates of wheat for increased competitiveness with weeds in low rainfall environments Journal of Agricultural Science 142, 395–409.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lutman PJW,
Dixon FL, Risiott R
(1993) The response of four spring-sown combinable arable crops to weed competition. Weed Research 34, 137–146.
| Crossref |
McDonald GK
(2003) Competitiveness against grass weeds in field pea genotypes. Weed Research 43, 48–58.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Medd RW,
Auld BA,
Kemp DR, Murison RD
(1985) The influence of wheat density and spatial arrangement on annual ryegrass, Lolium rigidum Gaudin, competition. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 361–371.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Melander B
(1993) Modellng the effects of Elymus repens (L.) Gould competition on yield of cereals, peas and oilseed rape. Weed Research 34, 99–108.
| Crossref |
O’Connor GE,
Evans J,
Fettell NA,
Bamforth I,
Stuchberry J,
Heenan DP, Chalk PM
(1993) Sowing date and varietal effects on the N2 fixation of field pea and implications for improvement of soil nitrogen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 44, 151–163.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
O’Donovan JT, Blackshaw RE
(1997) Effect of volunteer barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) interference on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) yield and profitability. Weed Science 45, 249–255.
Tofinga MP,
Paolini R, Snaydon RW
(1993) A study of root and shoot interactions between cereals and peas in mixtures. Journal of Agricultural Science 120, 13–24.
Townley-Smith L, Wright AT
(1994) Field pea cultivar and weed response to crop seed rate in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 74, 387–393.
Verbyla AP,
Cullis BR,
Kenward MG, Welham SJ
(1999) The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data using smoothing splines (with discussion). Applied Statistics 48, 269–312.
Wall DA,
Friesen GH, Bhatti TK
(1991) Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless field peas. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71, 473–480.
Whish JPM,
Sindel BM,
Jessop RS, Felton WL
(2002) The effect of row spacing and weed density on yield loss of chickpea. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 1335–1340.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
