Register      Login
Crop and Pasture Science Crop and Pasture Science Society
Plant sciences, sustainable farming systems and food quality
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > CP > CP23075
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)
Contents Vol 74(12)

Interference of sterile oat (Avena ludoviciana) and Mexican pricklepoppy (Argemone mexicana) in chickpea

Gulshan Mahajan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9423-9893 A B * and Bhagirath Singh Chauhan C D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A The Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.

B Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141004, India.

C The Centre for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) and School of Agriculture and Food Sciences (SAFS), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.

D Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125004, India.

* Correspondence to: g.mahajan@uq.edu.au

Handling Editor: Christopher Preston

Crop & Pasture Science 74(12) 1156-1164 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP23075
Submitted: 18 March 2023  Accepted: 10 May 2023  Published: 1 June 2023

© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Context

Knowledge gaps exist for the interference of Avena ludoviciana and Argemone mexicana in chickpea grown in eastern Australia.

Aims

This research aimed to examine the effect of different interference levels of A. ludoviciana and A. mexicana for their potential to cause yield loss in chickpea.

Methods

Experiments were conducted in a randomised complete block design with five weed infestation levels of both weeds (none, low, medium, high, and very high) in three replications.

Key results

Infestations of A. ludoviciana and A. mexicana at 15 and 17 plants m−2 caused an 83 and 48% reduction in chickpea yield, respectively, compared with weed-free situations. Based on the regression model, a 50% yield reduction of chickpea occurred at 10 and 17 plants m−2 of A. ludoviciana and A. mexicana, respectively. Based on the modified hyperbolic model, maximum seed production of A. ludoviciana and A. mexicana in chickpea at an infestation level of 1 plant m−2 was estimated at 366 and 7800 seeds m−2, respectively. At crop harvest, seed retention of A. ludoviciana and A. mexicana was greater than 50 and 90%, respectively.

Conclusions

A. ludoviciana and A. mexicana infestation in chickpea caused a substantial reduction in crop yield. High seed retention in A. mexicana and A. ludoviciana in chickpea suggests the possibility to manage these two weeds through harvest weed seed control.

Implications

The information generated from this study could help in strengthening integrated weed management in chickpea.

Keywords: biology, seed production, seed retention, weed, weed biomass, weed competition, weed density, yield.

References

ABARES (2021) Australian crop report. December. CC BY 4.0. (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences: Canberra, ACT, Australia) Available at http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/aucrpd9abcc003/aucrpd9aba [Accessed 25 October 2021]

Berger JD, Turner NC, Siddique KHM, Knights EJ, Brinsmead RB, Mock I, Edmondson C, Khan TN (2004) Genotype by environment studies across Australia reveal the importance of phenology for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) improvement. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55, 1071-1084.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Boydston RA, Nelson H, Chaves-Cordoba B (2018) Tolerance of chickpeas to postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technology 32, 190-194.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

CottonInfo (2014) ‘Weedpak weed ID guide.’ p. 303. (New South Wales Department of Primary Industries: Narrabri, NSW)

Cousens R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Annals of Applied Biology 107, 239-252.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Duke SO, Heap I (2017) Evolution of weed resistance to herbicides: what have we learned after 70 years? In ‘Biology, physiology and molecular biology of weeds’. (Ed. M Jugulam) pp. 63–86. (CRC Press)

Eslami SV, Gill GS, Bellotti B, McDonald G (2006) Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) interference in wheat. Weed Science 54, 749-756.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Frenda AS, Ruisi P, Saia S, Frangipane B, Di Miceli G, Amato G, Giambalvo D (2013) The critical period of weed control in faba bean and chickpea in Mediterranean areas. Weed Science 61, 452-459.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Gill G, Borger C, Chauhan B (2021) Ecology of major emerging weeds. Available at https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/all-publications/publications/2021 [Accessed 9 July 2022]

GRDC (2017) Weed management in chickpeas. Grains Research and Development Corporation. Available at https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/grdc-update-papers/tab-content/grdcupdate-papers/2017/03/weed-management-in-chickpeas [Accessed 20 June 2022]

Korres NE, Norsworthy JK, Mauromoustakos A (2019) Effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) establishment time and distance from the crop row on biological and phenological characteristics of the weed: implications on soybean yield. Weed Science 67, 126-135.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lemerle D, Luckett DJ, Lockley P, Koetz E, Wu H (2014) Competitive ability of Australian canola (Brassica napus) genotypes for weed management. Crop & Pasture Science 65, 1300-1310.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lyon DJ, Wilson RG (2005) Chemical weed control in dryland and irrigated chickpea. Weed Technology 19, 959-965.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mahajan G, Chauhan BS (2021a) Biological traits of six sterile oat biotypes in response to planting time. Agronomy Journal 113, 42-51.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mahajan G, Chauhan BS (2021b) Interference of wild oat (Avena fatua) and sterile oat (Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana) in wheat. Weed Science 69, 485-491.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mahajan G, Chauhan BS (2021c) Seed longevity and seedling emergence behavior of wild oat (Avena fatua) and sterile oat (Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana) in response to burial depth in eastern Australia. Weed Science 69, 362-371.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mahajan G, McKenzie K, Chauhan BS (2019) Influence of row spacing and cultivar selection on annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control and grain yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Crop & Pasture Science 70, 140-146.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Manalil S, Chauhan BS (2019) Interference of turnipweed (Rapistrum rugosum) and Mexican pricklepoppy (Argemone mexicana) in wheat. Weed Science 67, 666-672.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Manalil S, Chauhan BS (2021) Seedbank persistence and emergence pattern of Argemone mexicana, Rapistrum rugosum and Sonchus oleraceus in the eastern grain region of Australia. Scientific Reports 11, 18095.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Manalil S, Werth J, Jackson R, Chauhan BS, Preston C (2017) An assessment of weed flora 14 years after the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant cotton in Australia. Crop & Pasture Science 68, 773-780.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Martin P, Gardner M, McMullen G (2014) What is driving flowering time differences of wheat varieties between years. GRDC Updates. Grains Research Development Corporation, Goondiwindi, Australia.

Mawalagedera SM, Brand JD (2022) Yield gap of winter pulses in South Eastern Australia. In ‘Proceedings of the 20th agronomy Australia conference’. Toowoomba Qld. Available at www.agronomyaustraliaproceedings.org

Merga B, Haji J (2019) Economic importance of chickpea: production, value, and world trade. Cogent Food & Agriculture 5, 1615718.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mishra JS, Singh VP, Yaduraju NT (2006) Wild onion (Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav.) interference in lentil and chickpea crops and its management through competitive cropping. Weed Biology and Management 6, 151-156.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mohammadi G, Javanshir A, Khooie FR, Mohammadi SA, Zehtab Salmasi S (2005) Critical period of weed interference in chickpea. Weed Research 45, 57-63.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Nugent T, Storrie A, Medd R (1999) Managing wild oats. (CRC for Weed Management Systems and Grains Research and Development Corporation). Available at https://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/495346/archive-wild_oats.pdf

Reid D, Aguis P, Buck S, Collin R, Conway M, Keys P, Kuskie J, Spackman G, Sullivan A (2004) Effect of row spacing and plant population on wheat production in central Queensland – 2004. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane.

Reiss A, Fomsgaard IS, Mathiassen SK, Stuart RM, Kudsk P (2018) Weed suppression by winter cereals: relative contribution of competition for resources and allelopathy. Chemoecology 28, 109-121.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Sahil , Mahajan G, Loura D, Raymont K, Chauhan BS (2020) Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana. PLoS ONE 15, e0234648.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Solh MB, Pala M (1990) Weed control in chickpea. In ‘Present status and future prospects of chickpea crop production and improvement in the Mediterranean countries’. (Eds MC Saxena, JI Cubero, J Wery) pp. 93–99. (CIHEAM-IAMZ: Zaragoza, Spain)

Soltani N, Dille JA, Robinson DE, Sprague CL, Morishita DW, Lawrence NC, Kniss AR, Jha P, Felix J, Nurse RE, Sikkema PH (2018) Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada. Weed Technology 32, 749-753.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Squires C, Mahajan G, Walsh M, Chauhan BS (2021) Effect of planting time and row spacing on growth and seed production of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) and feather fingergrass (Chloris virgata) in sorghum. Weed Technology 35, 974-979.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Storrie A (2007) ‘Wild oat resistance options.’ Grains Research Update: Northern region. (Grains Research & Development Corporation) Available at http://users.tpg.com.au/icanadsl/newsletters/NL37V4.pdf

Tanveer A, Javaid MM, Irfan M, Khaliq A, Yaseen M (2015) Yield losses in chickpea with varying densities of dragon spurge (Euphorbia dracunculoides). Weed Science 63, 522-528.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Tiwari AN, Tiwari SN, Rathi JPS, Verma RN, Tripathi AK (2001) Crop–weed competition studies in chickpea having Asphodelus tenuifolius dominated weed community under rain fed condition. Indian Journal of Weed Science 33, 198-199.
| Google Scholar |

Walsh MJ, Harrington RB, Powles SB (2012) Harrington seed destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Science 52, 1343-1347.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Walsh M, Newman P, Powles S (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technology 27, 431-436.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Werth J, Boucher L, Thornby D, Walker S, Charles G (2013) Changes in weed species since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant cotton. Crop & Pasture Science 64, 791-798.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

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 | Google Scholar |