Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-08T18:05:30.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive traits and the stability of wheat cultivars in differing natural weed environments on the northern Canadian Prairies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2007

H. MASON ,
L. GOONEWARDENE  and
D. SPANER
H. MASON
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CanadaT6G 2P5
L. GOONEWARDENE
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CanadaT6G 2P5
D. SPANER*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CanadaT6G 2P5
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: dean.spaner@ualberta.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Nine spring wheat cultivars, selected on the basis of height, tillering capacity and maturity, were grown in differing levels of natural weed presence at three locations in Edmonton and New Norway, Alberta between 2003 and 2004. The objectives of the study were to (1) identify competitive traits in wheat cultivars, (2) determine whether traits associated with competitive ability differ under increasing weed pressure and (3) assess cultivar stability in and adaptation to environments differing in yield potential and weed competition. Eight experimental environments (including conventionally and organically managed fields with and without common oats sown as a weed analogue) were grouped into low, medium and high weed pressure levels, based on mean total weed biomass. Tallness and early heading and maturity were related to increased grain yield at the highest weed level. Greater spikes/m2, tallness and early heading were associated with reduced weed biomass, depending on weed level. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that height accounted for a small amount of variation in low weed environments, yet was more important as weed pressure increased. Finlay–Wilkinson (Finlay & Wilkinson 1963) stability analysis demonstrated that cultivars responded differently in environments differing in yield potential and in weed pressure. Older wheat cultivars were generally more yield-stable across environments, while modern semidwarf cultivars were more sensitive to changes in weed level. The cultivar Park (released in 1963) was the most yield- and weed-stable cultivar, coupled with relatively high yields and average weed biomass accumulation, and may therefore be well adapted to low yielding or high weed environments.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 21 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (1995). Soil Group Map of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Conservation and Development Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.Google Scholar
Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (2006). Herbicide Selector. Available online at http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/app23/herbsel (verified 28/05/07).Google Scholar
Baker, R. J. & Townley-Smith, T. F. (1986). Breeding wheat for yield. In Wheat Production in Canada – a Review. Proceedings of the Canadian Wheat Production Symposium (Eds Slinkard, A. E. & Fowler, D. B.), pp. 443–452. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Division of Extension and Community Relations, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
Barberi, P., Silvestri, N., Peruzzi, A. & Raffaelli, M. (2000). Finger-harrowing of durum wheat under different tillage systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calderini, D. F. & Slafer, G. A. (1999). Has yield stability changed with genetic improvement of wheat yield? Euphytica 107, 51–59.Google Scholar
Canadian Wheat Board (2006). 2006 CWB News Releases. Available online at http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2006/101906.jsp (verified 28/5/07).Google Scholar
Champion, G. T., Froud-Williams, R. J. & Holland, J. M. (1998). Interactions between wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar, row spacing and density and the effect on weed suppression and crop yield. Annals of Applied Biology 133, 443–453.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. D., Gill, G. S. & Rebetzke, G. J. (2001). Identification of quantitative trait loci for traits conferring weed competitiveness in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1235–1246.Google Scholar
Cosser, N. D., Gooding, M. J., Thompson, A. J. & Froud-Williams, R. J. (1997). Competitive ability and tolerance of organically grown wheat cultivars to natural weed infestations. Annals of Applied Biology 130, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. D., Rebetzke, G. J. & Barnett, A. G. (2003). Dynamics of competition between wheat and oat: II. Effects of dwarfing genes. Agronomy Journal 95, 1305–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fufa, H., Baenziger, P. S., Beecher, B. S., Graybosch, R. A., Eskridge, K. M. & Nelson, L. A. (2005). Genetic improvement trends in agronomic performances and end-use quality characteristics among hard red winter wheat cultivars in Nebraska. Euphytica 144, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, M. D. & Youssefian, S. (1985). Dwarfing genes in wheat. In Progress in Plant Breeding (Ed Russell, G. E.), pp. 1–35. London, UK: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gooding, M. J., Thompson, A. J. & Davies, W. P. (1993). Interception of photosynthetically active radiation, competitive ability and yield of organically grown wheat varieties. Aspects of Applied Biology 34, 355–362.Google Scholar
Hartl, W. (1989). Influence of undersown clovers on weeds and on the yield of winter-wheat in organic farming. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 27, 389–396.Google Scholar
Hucl, P. (1998). Response to weed control by four spring wheat genotypes differing in competitive ability. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 78, 171–173.Google Scholar
Hucl, P. & Baker, R. J. (1987). A study of ancestral and modern Canadian spring wheats. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 67, 87–97.Google Scholar
Huel, D. G. & Hucl, P. (1996). Genotypic variation for competitive ability in spring wheat. Plant Breeding 115, 325–329.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. (1993). Prospects for weed-control through crop interference. Ecological Applications 3, 84–91.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. & Hunter, J. H. (1991). Competitiveness of Canada Prairie spring wheats with wild oat (Avena fatua L.). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71, 1089–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, N. E. & Froud-Williams, R. J. (2002). Effects of winter wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological characteristics of naturally occurring weed flora. Weed Research 42, 417–428.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., Cousens, R. D. & Coombes, N. E. (1996). The potential for selecting wheat varieties strongly competitive against weeds. Weed Research 36, 505–513.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Gill, G. S., Murphy, C. E., Walker, S. R., Cousens, R. D., Mokhtari, S., Peltzer, S. J., Coleman, R. & Luckett, D. J. (2001 a). Genetic improvement and agronomy for enhanced wheat competitiveness with weeds. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 527–548.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B. & Orchard, B. (2001 b). Ranking the ability of wheat varieties to compete with Lolium rigidum. Weed Research 41, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallarino, A. P., Oyarzabal, E. S. & Hinz, P. N. (1999). Interpreting within-field relationships between crop yields and soil and plant variables using factor analysis. Precision Agriculture 1, 15–25.Google Scholar
Mason, H., Navabi, A., Frick, B., O'Donovan, J. T. & Spaner, D. (2007). Cultivar and seeding rate effects on the competitive ability of spring cereals grown under organic production in northern Canada. Agronomy Journal (in press).Google Scholar
Miller, N. G. & McLelland, M. (2001). Using 1,000 Kernel Weight for Calculating Seeding Rates and Harvest Losses (Agdex 100/22-1). Lacombe, AB, Canada: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W. & Hall, L. M. (2000). Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technology 14, 624–629.Google Scholar
Organic Crop Improvement Association (2000). International Certification Standards, as Revised March 2000. Lincoln, NE, USA: OCIA International.Google Scholar
Richards, M. C. & Whytock, G. P. (1993). Varietal competitiveness with weeds. Aspects of Applied Biology 34, 345–354.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2003). User's Guide, Release 9.1. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Smith, G. L. (1991). Principal component analysis: an introduction. Analytical Proceedings 28, 150–151.Google Scholar
Timm, N. H. (2002). Applied Multivariate Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Vandeleur, R. K. & Gill, G. S. (2004). The impact of plant breeding on the grain yield and competitive ability of wheat in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55, 855–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Ramsel, R. E., Nordquist, P. T., Schmidt, J. W. & Challaiah, (1986). Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agronomy Journal 78, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar