Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:34:01.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dog mustard (Erucastrum gallicum) response to crop competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Wall
David A. Wall*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Centre, P.O. Box 1000A, R.R.#3, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada R7A 5Y3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies suggested that dog mustard was less competitive than wheat, but of similar competitiveness to flax. In field studies, dog mustard growth and development were markedly affected by crop competition. Competition from flax and wheat reduced dog mustard leaf area, shoot dry weight, plant height, and seed production compared with the weed grown on summer-fallow. Dog mustard was a prolific seed producer when grown in the absence of interspecific competition. On summer-fallow, dog mustard produced as many as 79,100 seeds plant−1 when moisture was not a limiting factor. However, average seed production was 19,400 and 8000 seeds plant−1 in 1994 and 1995, respectively.

Keywords

Dog mustard, Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz ERWGAflax, Linum usitatissimum L. ‘NorLin’wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘AC Taber.’Competitiongrowth analysisseed productionERWGA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , June 1997 , pp. 397 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

DeWit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versk. Landbk. Onderz. No. 66.8.Google Scholar
DeWit, C. T. and VandenBerg, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13: 212–221.Google Scholar
Downey, R. K. and Röbbelen, G. 1989. Brassica species. in Röbbelen, G., Downey, R. K., and Ashri, A., eds. Oil Crops of the World. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 339–362.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Mixtures of species. I. Space and proportions. in Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press, pp. 237–276.Google Scholar
Klemow, K. M. and Raynal, D. J. 1983. Population biology of an annual plant in a temporally variable habitat. J. Ecol. 73: 691–703.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A. and Morrison, W. H. 1979. Analysis of oil content of sunflower seed by wide-line NMR. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 56: 961–964.Google Scholar
Satorre, E. H. and Snaydon, R. W. 1992. A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 32: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoggan, H. J. 1978. Cruciferae (mustard family). in The Flora of Canada: Part 3—Dicotyledoneae (Saururaceae to Violaceae). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, pp. 778–848.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1984. Weed Surveys of Manitoba Cereal and Oilseed Crops, 1978, 1979 and 1981. Weed Survey Series, Publication 84-1. Regina, Canada: Agriculture Canada. 230 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1987. Weed Surveys of Saskatchewan Cereal and Oilseed Crops, 1986. Weed Survey Series, Publication 87-1. Regina, Canada: Agriculture Canada. 251 p.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1993. Comparative analysis of three cruciferous weeds: response to temperature and competition. Proc. Brighton. Crop Prot. Con. Weeds 2: 759–766.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1995. Comparative analysis of three cruciferous weeds: growth, development and competitiveness. Weed Sci. 43: 75–80.Google Scholar