Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T14:44:48.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manipulating Crop Row Orientation to Suppress Weeds and Increase Crop Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Catherine P. D. Borger ,
Abul Hashem  and
Shahab Pathan
Catherine P. D. Borger*
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Dryland Research Institute, P.O. Box 432, Merredin, WA, Australia 6415
Abul Hashem
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Centre for Cropping Systems, P.O. Box 483, Northam, WA, Australia 6401
Shahab Pathan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 10 Doney Street, Narrogin, WA, Australia 6312
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cborger@agric.wa.gov.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop rows oriented at a right angle to sunlight direction (i.e., east–west within the winter cropping system in Western Australia) may suppress weed growth through greater shading of weeds in the interrow spaces. This was investigated in the districts of Merredin and Beverley, Western Australian (latitudes of 31° and 32°S) from 2002 to 2005 (four trials). Winter grain crops (wheat, barley, canola, lupines, and field peas) were sown in an east–west or north–south orientation. Within wheat and barley crops oriented east–west, weed biomass (averaged throughout all trials) was reduced by 51 and 37%, and grain yield increased by 24 and 26% (compared with crops oriented north–south). This reduction in weed biomass and increase in crop yield likely resulted from the increased light (photosynthetically active radiation) interception by crops oriented east–west (i.e., light interception by the crop canopy as opposed to the weed canopy was 28 and 18% greater in wheat and barley crops oriented east–west, compared with north–south crops). There was no consistent effect of crop row orientation in the canola, field pea, and lupine crops. It appears that manipulation of crop row orientation in wheat and barley is a useful weed-control technique that has few negative effects on the farming system (i.e., does not cost anything to implement and is more environmentally friendly than chemical weed control).

Keywords

Barley, Hordeum vulgare L.canola, Brassica napus L.field pea, Pisum sativum L.lupine, Lupinus angustifolius L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Light interceptionrow orientationrow spacingweed biomassgrain yieldannual ryegrasswild radish
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 174 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Angiras, N. and Sharma, V. 1996. Influence of row orientation, row spacing and weed-control methods on physiological performance of irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian J. Agron. 41:41–47.Google Scholar
Ballare, C. L. and Casal, J. J. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crop Res. 67:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballare, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sanchez, R. A. 1990. Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: an early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science. 247:329–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bureau of Meteorology 2009. Western Australian Climate Data. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/ca_wa_names.shtml. Accessed: June 8, 2009.Google Scholar
Connor, D. J., Centeno, A., and Gomez-del-Campo, M. 2009. Yield determination in olive hedgerow orchards. II. Analysis of radiation and fruiting profiles. Crop Pasture Sci. 60:443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia 2009. Western Australia's Agri-Food, Fibre and Fisheries Industries 09. http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/servlet/page?_pageid=639&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30. Accessed: September 14, 2009.Google Scholar
Geoscience Australia 2009. Compute Sun and Moon Azimuth and Elevation. http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/astro/smpos.jsp. Accessed: September 17, 2009.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M., Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Casal, J. J., Kaufman, M., Roush, M. L., and Deregibus, V. A. 1994. Effect of light on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) competition. Weed Technol. 8:37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43:474–482.Google Scholar
Isbell, R. F. 2002. The Australian Soil Classification. 2nd ed. Canberra, Australia CSIRO Publishing. 152.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. 1995. Losses in grain yield of winter crops from Lolium rigidum competition depend on crop species, cultivar and season. Weed Res. 35:503–509.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 269–321. In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mutsaers, H. J. W. 1980. The effect of row orientation, date and latitude on light absorption by row crops. J. Agric. Sci. 95:381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, J. W. 1977. Diurnal light interception and a computer model of light interception by hedgerow apple orchards. J. Appl. Ecol. 14:601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, J. W. 1989. The effects of row orientation, tree height, time of year and latitude on light interception and distribution in model apple hedgerow canopies. J. Hortic. Sci. 64:137–145.Google Scholar
Pearcy, R. W. 1991. Radiation and light measurements. Pages 97–117. In Pearcy, R. W., Ehleringer, L., Mooney, H. A., and Rundel, P. W. Field Methods and Instrumentation. New York, NY Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Pendleton, J. W. and Dungan, G. H. 1958. Effect of row direction on spring oat yields. Agron. J. 50:341–343.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. R., Peeper, T. F., and Solie, J. B. 2001. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) row spacing, seeding rate, and cultivar affect interference from rye (Secale cereale). Weed Technol. 15:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseaux, M. C., Hall, A. J., and Sanchez, R. A. 1996. Far-red enrichment and photosynthetically active radiation influence leaf senescence in field-grown sunflower. Physiol. Plant. 96:217–224.Google Scholar
Sharma, V. and Angiras, N. N. 1996a. Effect of row orientations, row spacings and weed-control methods on light interception, canopy temperature and productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian J. Agron. 41:390–396.Google Scholar
Sharma, V. and Angiras, N. N. 1996b. Light interception, weed growth and productivity of irrigated wheat as influenced by crop geometry and weed control methods. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 1:157–162.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A. and Fidelibus, M. 2005. Grapevine row orientation affects light environment, growth, and development of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 53:802–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeleur, R. K. and Gill, G. S. 2004. The impact of plant breeding on the grain yield and competitive ability of wheat in Australia. Aust. J. Ag. Res. 55:855–861.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. J. and Powles, S. B. 2007. Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol. 21:332–338.Google Scholar
Yunusa, I. A. M., Belford, R. K., Tennant, D., and Sedgley, R. H. 1993. Row spacing fails to modify soil evaporation and grain yield in spring wheat in a dry Mediterranean environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 44:661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar