Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:53:19.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Cultivars for Basal Branching and Weed Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. M. Spies ,
T. D. Warkentin  and
S. J. Shirtliffe
J. M. Spies
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada
T. D. Warkentin
Affiliation:
Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada
S. J. Shirtliffe*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: steve.shirtliffe@usask.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field pea cultivars often differ in weed competition. In several crop types branching has been cited as one of the characteristics conferring competition with weeds. The objective of this study was to determine the difference in weed competition among field pea cultivars differing in basal branching and other characteristics. Ten field pea cultivars with divergent basal branching ability were seeded at 50 plants m−2 under weedy and weed-free conditions to evaluate their competition with weeds. Branching did not differ greatly between cultivars and was not associated with the weed competiveness of the field pea cultivars. The forage pea cultivars, which were leafed and had longer vines, were much more competitive than the semi-leafless grain cultivars. As a result, the forage cultivars were better able to suppress weeds and maintain their yield under weed presence. However, the absolute seed yield of the forage pea cultivars was low, making them a poor choice for seed production. Vine length and the leafy characteristic may be important genetic characteristics associated with competition in field pea cultivars.

Keywords

Imazamoximazethapyrglyphosatepea, Pisum sativumcompetitive abilitytoleranceweed suppressioncrop varietycrop genotypespulse cropsintegrated weed managementorganic agriculture
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 218 - 223
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

Armstrong, E. L. and Pate, J. S. 1994. The field pea crop in S.W. Australia. I. Patterns of growth, biomass production and photosynthetic performance in genotypes of contrasting morphology. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 45:1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Sánchez, R. A., Scopel, S. L., Casal, J. J., and Ghersa, C. M. 1987. Early detection of neighbour plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant Cell Environ. 10:551–557.Google Scholar
Cote, R., Gerrath, J. M., Posluszny, U., and Grodzinski, B. 1992. Comparative development of conventional and semi-leafless peas (Pisum sativum). Can. J. Bot. 70:571–580.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. 2001. Survey of yield losses due to weeds in Central Alberta. Can J. Plant Sci. 81:339–342.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through weed suppression. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., Cousens, R. D., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. The potential for selecting wheat varieties strongly competitive against weeds. Weed Res. 36:505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutman, P. J., Dixon, F. L., and Risiott, R. 1994. The response of four spring-sown combinable arable crops to weed competition. Weed Res. 34:137–146.Google Scholar
Martin, I., Tenoria, J. L., and Ayerbe, L. 1994. Yield, growth and water use of conventional and semi-leafless peas in semi-arid environments. Crop Sci. 34:1576–1583.Google Scholar
Mason, H., Goonewardene, L., and Spaner, D. 2008. Competitive traits and the stability of wheat cultivars in differing natural weed environments on the northern Canadian Prairies. J. Agric. Sci. 146:21–33.Google Scholar
McDonald, G. K. 2003. Competitiveness against grass weeds in field pea genotypes. Weed Res. 43:48–58.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., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Nyland, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds. 10:224–229.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 1999. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 2008. Varieties of Grain Crops. Saskatchewan, Canada Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 24 p.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. 2006. Pulse Manual. Chapter 6: Field Pea. 20 p.Google Scholar
Semere, T. and Froud-Williams, R. J. 2001. The effect of pea cultivar and water stress on root and shoot competition between vegetative plants of maize and peas. J. Appl. Ecol. 38:137–145.Google Scholar
Spies, J. M., Warkentin, T., and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2010. Basal branching in field pea cultivars and yield-density relationships. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90:679–690.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2010. Canada: Pulse and Special Crops Outlook. http://www.agr.gc.ca/pol/mad-dam/index_e.php?s1=pubs&s2=spec&page=intro. Accessed: May 5, 2010.Google Scholar
Townley-Smith, L. and Wright, A. T. 1994. Field pea cultivar and weed response to crop seed rate in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:387–393.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Freisen, G. H., and Bhati, T. K. 1991. Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless field peas. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:473–480.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. and Townley-Smith, L. 1996. Wild Mustard (Sinapsis arvensis) responses to field pea (Pisum sativum) cultivar and seeding rate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:907–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar