Critical period of weed control in chickpea under non-irrigated conditions

The present study was conducted during the growing seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007 to determine the critical period of weed control (CPWC) in chickpea (cv. Aziziye 94). In order to evaluate the beginning of CPWC, weeds were allowed to compete at weekly intervals for 1 to 8 weeks after emergence (WAE) and, at the end of CPWC, plots were kept weed-free at weekly intervals for 1 to 8 WAE by periodic hand hoeing. The beginning and the end of CPWC were based on 5% acceptable yield loss (AYL) levels, which were determined by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data, representing increasing duration of weed-interference and weed-free period, estimated as growing degree days (GDDs). The major weed species were Centaurea depressa Bieb. and Bromus tectorum L. for the 1st year, Salsola ruthenica Iljin., Amaranthus sp. and Heliotropium europaeum L. for the 2nd year and Amaranthus spp., Salsola ruthenica Iljin., Sisymbrium septulatum DC. and Heliotropium europaeum L. for the 3rd year. Overall weed density was 190 plants m-2 in 2005, 215 plants m-2 in 2006, and 191 plants m-2 in 2007. Yield losses were 26.4% in 2005, 31.5% in 2006, and 25.0% in 2007 when the crop was not weeded. It was found that at the 5% AYL level CPWC was 2.32 WAE to harvest in the 1st year, from emergence to harvest in the 2nd year, and from 0.34 WAE to harvest in the 3rd year. The present findings suggest that the determination of CPWC is crucial in chickpea production.

Critical period of weed control in chickpea under non-irrigated conditions

The present study was conducted during the growing seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007 to determine the critical period of weed control (CPWC) in chickpea (cv. Aziziye 94). In order to evaluate the beginning of CPWC, weeds were allowed to compete at weekly intervals for 1 to 8 weeks after emergence (WAE) and, at the end of CPWC, plots were kept weed-free at weekly intervals for 1 to 8 WAE by periodic hand hoeing. The beginning and the end of CPWC were based on 5% acceptable yield loss (AYL) levels, which were determined by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data, representing increasing duration of weed-interference and weed-free period, estimated as growing degree days (GDDs). The major weed species were Centaurea depressa Bieb. and Bromus tectorum L. for the 1st year, Salsola ruthenica Iljin., Amaranthus sp. and Heliotropium europaeum L. for the 2nd year and Amaranthus spp., Salsola ruthenica Iljin., Sisymbrium septulatum DC. and Heliotropium europaeum L. for the 3rd year. Overall weed density was 190 plants m-2 in 2005, 215 plants m-2 in 2006, and 191 plants m-2 in 2007. Yield losses were 26.4% in 2005, 31.5% in 2006, and 25.0% in 2007 when the crop was not weeded. It was found that at the 5% AYL level CPWC was 2.32 WAE to harvest in the 1st year, from emergence to harvest in the 2nd year, and from 0.34 WAE to harvest in the 3rd year. The present findings suggest that the determination of CPWC is crucial in chickpea production.

___

  • Ahlawat IPS, Singh A, Sarraf CS (1981) It pays to control weeds in pulses. Indian Farming 31: 11-13.
  • Al-Th ahabi SA, Yassin JZ, Abu-Irmaileh BE, Saxena MC (1994) Eff ect of weed removal on productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Med.) in Mediterranean environment. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 172: 333-341.
  • Aydeniz A (1985) Toprak Amenajmanı. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No: 928, Ankara.
  • Bhan VM, Kukula S (1986) Weeds and their control in chickpea. In: Th e Chickpea (Eds. MC Saxena, KB Singh), CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8DE, UK, pp. 319-329.
  • Bouyoucos GD (1951) A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of the soil. Agronomy Journal 43: 434-438.
  • Chapman HD, Pratt PF (1961) Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants and Waters. University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences. USA.
  • Cochran WG, Cox GM (1957) Experimental Designs, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
  • Çağlar KÖ (1949) Toprak Bilgisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No:10, Ankara.
  • Evans SP, Knezevic SZ, Lindquist JL, Shapiro CA, Blankenship EE (2003) Nitrogen application infl uences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Science 51: 408-417.
  • FAO (2006) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006, report no: 103, Rome.
  • FAO (2009). Statistical Databases. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, http://faostat.fao.org/site/
  • Fenner M, Th ompson K (2005) Th e Ecology of Seeds. Cambridge University Press. UK, p. 250.
  • Hall MR, Swanton CJ, Anderson GW (1992) Th e critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Science 40: 441- 447.
  • Isik D., Mennan H, Bukun B, Oz A, Ngouajio M (2006) Th e critical period for weed control in corn in Turkey. Weed Technology 20: 867- 872.
  • Jackson ML (1985) Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course. Revised 2nd ed.. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliff s, New Jersey, USA.
  • Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Blankenship EE, Van Acker RC, Lindquist JL (2002) Critical periods for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Science 50: 773-786.
  • Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Mainz M (2003) Row spacing infl uences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology 17: 666-673.
  • Mohammadi G, Javanshir A, Khooie FR, Mohammadi SA, Zehtab Salmasi S (2005) Critical period of weed interference in chickpea. Weed Research 45: 57-63.
  • Norsworthy JK, Oliveira MJ (2004) Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide-and narrow-row corn. Weed Science 52: 802-807.
  • Olsen SR, Cole V, Watanabe FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimations of available phosphorus in soils by extractions with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939: 1-19.
  • Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classifi cation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633–1644.
  • Rao VS (2000) Principles of Weed Science. Science Publishers, INC, Enfi eld (NH), USA, p. 555.
  • Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils. Handbook 60, USDA.
  • SAS (2004) SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
  • Saxena MC, Subramaniyam KK, Yadav DS (1976) Chemical and mechanical control of weeds in gram. Pantnagar Journal of Research 1: 112-116.
  • Solh MB, Pala M (1990) Weed control in chickpea. Options Méditerranéennes - Série Séminaires 9: 93-99.
  • Swanton CJ, Weise SF (1991) Integrated weed management: Th e rationale and approach. Weed Technology 5: 657-663.
  • Th ompson K (2000) Th e functional ecology of soil seed banks. In: Seeds Th e Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities, 2nd ed. (Ed. M Fenner), CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8DE, UK, pp. 215-235.
  • TSMS (2008) Reports of Turkish State Meteorological Service, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Van Gastel AJG, Bishaw Z, Niane AA, Gregg BR, Gan Y (2007). Chickpea Seed Production. In: Chickpea Breeding and Management (Eds. SS Yadav, RJ Redden, W Chen, B Sharma), CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8DE, UK, pp. 417-444.
  • Verghis TI, McKenzie BA, Hill GD (1999) Phenological development of chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) in Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 27: 249-256.
  • Weaver SE, Tan CS (1983) Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): Growth analysis. Weed Science 31: 476-481.
  • Zabunoğlu S, Karaçal İ (1983) Gübreler ve Gübreleme Uygulama Kılavuzu. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Teksir No: 105, Ankara.
  • Zimdahl RL (2004) Weed-Crop Competition, A Review. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing., USA, p. 220.
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-011X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: TÜBİTAK
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Soil formation overlying volcanic materials at Mount Erenler, Konya, Turkey

Sıdıka ÖZCAN, Hasan Hüseyin ÖZAYTEKİN

Heritability for some agronomic characters of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and their linked microsatellites identification

Reza Amiri FAHLIANI, Mahmood KHODAMBASHI, Sadollah HOUSHMAND, Ahmad ARZANI, Karim SORKHEH

Akdeniz koşullarında beş erkenci sofralık üzüm çeşidinin açıkta ve örtüaltında yetiştiriciliğinin karşılaştırılması

Atilla Aytekin POLAT, Önder KAMİLOĞLU, Coşkun DURGAÇ

Global perspectives on first generation liquid biofuel production

Rok FINK, Saso MEDVED

Quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis for antioxidant and agronomically important traits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Bilal ÖKMEN, Hasan Özgür ŞIĞVA, Nergiz GÜRBÜZ, Mehmet ÜLGER

Erenler Dağı (Konya, Türkiye) volkanik materyalleri üzerinde toprak oluşumu

Sıdıka ÖZCAN, Hasan Hüseyin ÖZAYTEKİN

Comparison of open field and protected cultivation of five early table grape cultivars under Mediterranean conditions

Önder KAMİLOĞLU, Atilla Aytekin POLAT, Coşkun DURGAÇ

Molecular cloning and functional characterization of a Na+/H+ antiporter gene from halophyte Spartina anglica

Tao LAN, Yuanlin DUAN, Bin WANG, Yuanchang ZHOU, Weiren WU

Soybean breeding: comparison of the efficiency of different selection methods

Jegor MILADINOVIC, Joe W. BURTON, Svetlana Balesevic TUBIC, Dragana MILADINOVIC

Investigation of the reduction of mouldboard ploughshare wear through hot stamping and hardfacing processes

Aysel YAZICI