Next Article in Journal
A Preliminary Evaluation of the Use of Solid Residues from the Distillation of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants as Fertilizers in Mediterranean Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Temporal and Spatial Variations in Cropland Water-Use Efficiency and Influencing Factors in Xinjiang Based on the XGBoost–SHAP Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transcriptomic Analysis on Developing Seed Uncovers Candidate Genes Associated with Seed Storage Protein in Soybean
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy15081904
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Tillage System and Mineral Fertilization on Weed Suppression and Yield of Winter Wheat

by
Felicia Chețan
1,†,
Adrian Ioan Pop
2,†,
Cornel Chețan
1,
Ioan Gaga
1,
Alina Șimon
1,
Camelia Urdă
3,*,
Alin Popa
1,
Roxana Elena Călugăr
4,
Teodor Rusu
2,* and
Paula Ioana Moraru
2
1
Laboratory of Technology and Mechanization, Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda, Agriculturii Street 27, 401100 Turda, Romania
2
Department of Technical and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Mănăstur Street 3–5, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Laboratory of Biotechnologies and Physico-Chemical Analysis, Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda, Agriculturii Street 27, 401100 Turda, Romania
4
Laboratory of Maize Breeding, Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda, 401100 Turda, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2025, 15(8), 1904; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081904
Submission received: 22 July 2025 / Revised: 4 August 2025 / Accepted: 6 August 2025 / Published: 7 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agroecological Strategies for Improving Nutritional Quality of Cereal Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study, which began in the 2013/2014 agricultural year, aimed to assess the suitability of two soil tillage systems for wheat cultivation: conventional soil tillage (CS), which involved moldboard plowing to a depth of 28 cm followed by a single pass with a rotary harrow to prepare the seedbed, and no-tillage (NT). It also sought to analyze the impacts of these systems on weed infestation levels and, consequently, on yield. A moderate level of fertilization was applied. The experimental field was established with a three-year crop rotation system: soybean–winter wheat–maize. The total number of weed species was 30 in CS, the representative species being Xanthium strumarium, and in NT there were 29 species, with Xanthium strumarium, Cirsium arvense, Bromus tectorum, and Agropyron repens predominating. There was an increase in the number of perennials (dicots and monocots). The total dry matter of weeds was 35.4 t ha−1 in CS and 38.8 t ha−1 in NT. After 11 agricultural years, it was found that there were no significant differences between the two soil tillage systems in terms of wheat yield (6.55 t ha−1 in CS and 6.46 t ha−1 in NT). The uneven rainfall negatively affected wheat growth and favored the spread of weeds, especially dicotyledonous ones.

1. Introduction

Agricultural systems have evolved significantly over time and advancements in mechanization now make it possible to use alternative soil tillage methods [1,2,3]. These approaches replace traditional plowing [4], while still meeting the needs of cultivated plants and minimizing environmental harm [5,6,7]. Given recent climatic changes—such as the rise in average annual temperatures [8] and uneven rainfall distribution—it is essential to focus on adopting new and more modern soil tillage techniques [9,10]. Eliminating traditional plowing and adopting conservation soil tillage systems can contribute significantly to reducing soil erosion [11] and improving soil quality [12,13].
Wheat is one of the oldest and most important cereal crops [14,15], having served as a staple food source since ancient times, primarily due to its versatility—especially in bread production [16,17]. Beyond its nutritional importance, wheat also holds significant agrotechnical value. It serves as an excellent predecessor for most agricultural crops [18,19], as it is harvested early (usually in July in the Northern hemisphere) [20], allowing enough time for soil preparation and the establishment of the following crop. The cultivation of wheat under a no-tillage system involves sowing directly into the stubble of the previous crop without any soil disturbance [21,22]. However, this practice may also promote increased weed infestation, particularly with perennial species [23] that are not effectively controlled by the presence of surface plant mulch [24]. In combating or reducing weed infestation, it is essential to emphasize the importance of adhering to agrotechnical methods and measures that are part of crop cultivation practices [25,26,27]. These include crop rotation, the use of fertilizers and soil amendments, rational sowing, and the application of appropriate crop protection methods, all of which have an indirect but restrictive effect on weed development [28,29,30].
Research conducted in Romania by Ionescu (2011) [31] shows that dicotyledonous weed species predominate in winter wheat crops, the main causes being the large seed reserve in the soil [32], and in some situations, when wheat development is delayed, it has a low power to compete with weeds. In comparison to cultivated plants, weeds are easily adapted to less favorable environmental conditions [33]. This is particularly seen in relation to the following particularities: high propagation capacity [34]; the anatomical constitution of seeds that helps them spread easily, using wind, water from precipitation and irrigation, and animals; the high vitality and longevity of seeds; different periods of life (annuals, bi-annuals and perennials); seeds that germinate at staggered points during a year, reaching up to two years; and resistance to frost, drought, diseases, etc. [35,36].
Numerous studies in the scientific literature indicate that harmful agents (weeds, diseases, and pests) are major factors influencing crop yield [37,38,39], causing significant production losses in the absence of adequate crop protection measures, and these agents mainly include chemical treatments. The prolonged use of chemical products leads to increased agents of damage resistance, thereby reducing the effectiveness of treatments. Additionally, this practice contributes to environmental pollution, disrupting the natural functions of ecosystems [40,41,42]. When applying measures to combat weeds, we must bear in mind that the biodiversity of weeds in agricultural land can be lost [43,44,45], which is a significant global problem—a fact supported by Schumacher at al. (2018) [46] after research carried out in the south-west of Germany. Weeds, if kept under control, can even be a stimulus for agricultural crops if they remain small in size and do not shade, are not hosts for pests and diseases, and do not hinder the work of the cultivation technology [47].
Based on these considerations, at the Agricultural Research and Development Station (ARDS) in Turda, Romania, the evolution of the weed spectrum and yield of winter wheat was monitored under the influence of different soil tillage systems (two variants), moderate fertilization (two variants), and weather conditions in the area, in a multifactorial experiment carried out over 11 agricultural years. The conducted research aimed to find out whether the presence of mulch (vegetal debris remaining after the crop harvest) and the application of the no-tillage system in relation to differentiated mineral fertilization makes it possible to reduce the concentration of weeds amongst wheat crops.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of Soil and Climate

The Agricultural Research and Development Station (ARDS) Turda is located in the hilly area of the Transylvanian Plain (Romania) at 46°35′ north latitude, 23°47′ east longitude, and 345–493 m above sea level [48]. The experiment was conducted on Phaeozem soil [49] with a clay–clayey texture, characterized by good hydro-physical properties including 59% porosity at the surface and 47% at depth, a water retention capacity of 32%, and a withering coefficient of 18%. The soil’s agrochemical indices [50], determined for the 0–40 cm layer, were pH 7.00; humus content 2.94%; total nitrogen 0.162%; phosphorus 9 ppm; and potassium 140 ppm [51].
The average temperatures and precipitation over 11 agricultural years, 2013/2014–2023/2024 (October 2013–July 2024) and the multiannual average (1957–2024) are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (Source: Turda Meteorological Station: longitude 23′47, latitude 46′35′, altitude 427 m) [52].
The data recorded an increase in monthly temperatures, with a visible warming of the weather for the entire wheat vegetation period, starting from the emergence phase. It was also observed that between the experimental years, there was an uneven distribution of precipitation during the sowing–technological maturity period (October–July). Specific to the period under study is the fact that after periods of drought, the rains that subsequently fell had a torrential character, sometimes accompanied by strong winds and hail. One example is the agricultural year 2019/2020—after two dry months with low rainfall (April 17.8 mm and May 44.4 mm), an excessively rainy month of June followed, with 166.6 mm (rain + hail). Another is the agricultural year 2022/2023—after three dry months (March 10.8 mm, April 30.5 mm and May 33.2 mm), in June the rains reached 144.5 mm. In general, compared to MMA, winters recorded positive temperatures, snowfall was absent or of low quantity, and springs became colder and summers very warm; the effects of climate change also became increasingly evident in the area of experimentation.

2.2. Organization of the Experiment

The experiment was set up in the field in the autumn of 2013. The crop rotation system was based on a balance of the main crops in the area, namely, soybeans, wheat, and maize. The plant residues were chopped and spread on the soil surface (vegetable mulch). The poly-factorial experiment, type A × B − R: 2 × 2 − 3, was set up according to the subdivided plots method with three replications (R). The experimental plots size was 180 m−2.
The experimental factors were as follows:
Factor A. A soil tillage system with two graduations: a1—conventional soil tillage system (CS), where soil tillage involved moldboard plowing to a depth of 28 cm followed by a single pass with a rotary harrow to prepare the seedbed, and a2—no-tillage system (NT), whereby the wheat was sown directly into unprocessed land.
Factor B. Mineral fertilization with two graduations: b1—200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) autumn at sowing (I fert); b2—200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) autumn at sowing + in spring 119 kg ha−1 ammonium nitrate (33.5% N) (II fert) [53].
Factor C. Agricultural year (weather conditions) with 11 graduations: c1—2013/2014; c2—2014/2015; c3—2015/2016; c4—2016/2017; c5—2017/2018; c6—2018/2019; c7—2019/2020; c8—2020/2021; c9—2021/2022; c10—2022/2023; c11—2023/2024.
The experimental year was studied to determine the influence of climatic conditions (normal and deviations) on the treatments applied in the experimental field.
Winter wheat was sown (in the first ten days of October, in all experimental years) at a density of 550 germinate grains m−2, using the Gaspardo Directta seed drill and fertilizer [54], with 18 cm spacings between rows. Weed combating [10] was undertaken at the BBCH 29 phase (end of tillering) with 0.6 l ha−1 2.4 D acid, a product derived from DMA salt + 0.12 L ha−1 produced on the basis of Amidosulfuron 100 g L−1 + Iodosulfuron-methyl-Na 25 g L−1 + Mefenpyr diethyl 250 g L−1. Two treatments (on vegetation) were applied against diseases and pests: the first treatment (at the end of the wheat’s tillering) employed 0.6 L ha−1 fungicide based on Prothioconazole 53 g L−1 + Spiroxamine 224 g L−1 + Tebuconazole 148 g L−1 [55] + 0.2 L ha−1 insecticide based on 200 g L−1 Acetamiprid [56]; the second treatment (at the spike, before flowering) used 0.7 L ha−1 fungicide based on Trifloxystrobine 100 g L−1 + Tebuconazole 200 g L−1 [55] + 0.2 L ha−1 insecticide based on Tau-fluvalinate 240 g L−1 [10,57]. The harvest was carried out every experimental year in the second ten days of July, using the Wintersteiger plot combine [58], and the yield was determined by weighting on the experimental plots, after having eliminated the margins, and transformed according to 14% STAS humidity [59].

2.3. Biological Material

The biological material included in the present experiment is represented by the Andrada winter wheat variety (created at ARDS Turda) with a growing period from emergence to maturity of about 265–270 days and with the following morphophysiological characteristics: plant height of about 90 cm; lax ear; red grains; good resistance to low winter temperatures; good disease tolerance [10,60,61].

2.4. Weed Infestation

Weed infestation in the crop was evaluated for each experimental variant and repetition, using a square standard frame (0.5 × 0.5 m) as follows: numerically (2 days before the herbicide application)—moving along the diagonal of the experimental plot, the frame was randomly thrown and the weeds within the frame were counted and identified by species (No. m−2); quantitative gravimetrically (in the first ten days of July), two weeks before wheat harvesting—the weeds found within the metric frame were extracted (cut from the plot), separated by species, and weighed. The chemical weed control scheme was identical across all experimental variants, with the aim being to observe the effects of the experimental factors on the weed spectrum and weed evolution in the wheat crop. They were then dried in a drying stove [62] for 8 h at 105 °C and weighed again. After weighing, the average was calculated for each variant/repetition and the result was expressed in grams per square meter (g m−2) of dry matter (dm), referred to as ha−1, a method which was also used by Ionescu et al. (2016) [63].

2.5. Statistical Processing of Experimental Data

The experimental data were processed by ANOVA (analysis of variance) by use of the Least Significant Difference (LSD) (5%, 1%, and 0.1%) [64] and the Microsoft Excel program.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Analysis of Weed, Grouped by Dominant Classes

The weeds were determined (numerically and gravimetrically) in each experimental variant by group—annual dicotyledonous (AD), perennial dicotyledonous (PD), annual monocotyledonous (AM) and perennial monocotyledonous (PM)—and then their means were calculated (Table 1). The weeds in the experiment show a total of 33 species.
The AM group includes the following species: Echinochloa hispidula (ECHHI), Bromus tectorum (BROTE), Avena fatua (AVEFA), and Setaria italica (SETIT). The PM species is represented by Agropyron repens (AGRRE). As can be seen from the data presented in this figure, there is not a high degree of weediness in the crop, with the number of weeds being below the Economic Damage Threshold (EDT), which for winter wheat crop is 10–12 annual weeds per m−2 and 2–3 perennials per m−2 [47].
Among the species present in the NT system, Xanthium strumarium (AD), Cirsium arvense (DP), Bromus tectorum (MA), and Elymus repens (PM) stood out. In the NT system, the total number of weeds per m−2 has a higher value (46 weeds) compared to the CS system (36). This is mainly due to the fact that tillage, ploughing in particular, is one of the agrotechnical measures taken to control weeds. As an effect of plowing, the seeds of some species are pushed down into the soil, making them unable to germinate in the spring. The annual dicot species Veronica persica, Stellaria media, Fumaria officinalis, and Anagallis arvensis were only found in the CS system. These species have a rather low height, the stems are recumbent and very rarely upright, they prefer looser and permeable soils, they have a thin and less developed root system [65,66] compared to other AD species, and the soil is more compacted in the NT system. The presence of plant mulch in the NT system also hinders their growth by shading the seeds, which need light to germinate [67]. The perennial species Achillea millefolium, Taraxacum officinale, and Cardaria draba, which 11 years ago were found only on roadsides (plants specific to compacted soils), were identified during the research period in the NT variant, the variant in which the soil was not mobilized, the root system of these weeds being kept intact at a fairly high percentage compared to the CS where the roots were destroyed by tillage. Other research shows that ploughing remains an important means of weed control [68,69], and Walters and Kindhart (2002) [70] indicated a significant increase in weed problems in no-tillage systems, especially when plants are grown in rare rows. The expansion of the presence of the annual species Bromus tectorum in the cultivation of wheat is due to climatic changes, high temperatures, and drought, but also to the application of reduced tillage [71,72].

Winter Wheat Weed Community Composition

The participation of weed species in the degree of weediness of the winter wheat crop (Figure 3) is as follows: in the CS system, out of a total of 30 species (considered 100%), the highest percentage can be attributed to AD (66.7%, 20 species), followed by PD (16.7%, 5 species), AM (13.3%, 4 species) and MP (3.3%, 1 species). In the NT variant (total 29 species), the same ranking was maintained; AD species predominated at 55.2% (16 species), but there was an increase in the number of PD species (8 species), representing 27.6%. The shares of MA (four species) and MP (one species) were 13.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Other research, including that by Măturaru et al. (2019) [73] and Woźniak (2018) [74], shows that dicot weeds (autumn and spring emerging) predominate in wheat crops, mainly due to the mild winters in recent years and the ability of weeds to adapt to new climatic conditions. CS systems favor the emergence and development of annual weeds, while NT systems favor perennial weeds and species that can germinate successfully on the soil surface, such as annual monocots, as stated by Nichols et al. (2015) [75]. Kumar et al. (2013) [76] mentioned that mulch on the soil surface shades and can limit weed growth, thus reducing weed seed production, a conclusion also reached by Sims et al. (2018) [77]. In the study conducted in southwest Germany by Gerhard (2018) [78] on the impact of live mulch (usually sown between the rows of cereals), it was concluded that this parameter had less of an effect on perennial weeds, a conclusion which is also supported by Brandsæter et al. (2012) [79].

3.2. Influence of Experimental Factors in the Evolution of Weeding of Winter Wheat Crop

3.2.1. Influence of Soil Tillage System in the Evolution of Weeding of Winter Wheat Crop

The numbers of weed species belonging to the AD group had similar values in the two tillage systems (CS 20.3 weeds m−2, NT 20.8 weeds m−2); the difference of 0.5 weeds m−2 does not ground statistical assurance (Table 2). The no-tillage system (NT) showed a significantly positive influence in the increase in perennial weeds, with significance shown by the difference of 0.7–1.4 weeds per m−2 compared to the control (CS). The presence of mulch on the soil surface in the NT system led to a reduction in the number of AM weed species; the difference of −1.1 weeds m−2 compared with the control variant represents a significantly negative influence. Oppong et al. (2024) [80] evaluated the influences of CS and NT systems on the weediness of winter wheat over two cropping seasons and the results indicated that both tillage systems (CS, NT) showed similar weed cover during the first season, but higher weed growth in NT in the second season. Tørresen et al. (2003) [81], following experiments conducted between 1993 and 2000 in Norway, concluded that the number of perennial weeds and overwintering weed species increased in the reduced tillage system compared to the ploughing system.

3.2.2. Influence of the Mineral Fertilization Level in the Evolution of Weeding of Winter Wheat Crop

Additional fertilization, applied in spring, had a favorable effect on the development of AD weeds, with their number increasing significantly, the difference was of 3.3 weeds per m−2 compared to under basic fertilization. In the other groups (PD, AM, and PM), the number of weeds was reduced in this variant, especially for AM (significantly negative influence shown by the difference of 0.8 weeds per m−2 compared to the control variant), as shown in Table 3.
The large number of AD weeds is composed mainly of weeds that have a late spring germination period (e.g., Galeopsis bifida, Xanthium strumarium) or that germinate all year round (ex. Capsella rubella, Veronica persica), and which have quick access to the source of nutrition, in this case, additional fertilization. Also, some AD species, e.g., Chenopodium album and Amaranthus retroflexus, grow very well under high temperatures and in soils rich in nitrogen [82], showing seed-producing proficiency and high seed longevity [83]. Consequently, the number of weeds increased in the supplementarily fertilized variant and under conditions of high temperatures, as recorded in recent years in the experimental area. Biberdžić et al. (2011) [84] carried out research in Serbia on straw cereal crops, including wheat, and concluded that the application of fertilizers has a positive influence in reducing weed infestation and increasing yield. These claims were supported by Knežević et al. (2007) [85], who found that higher doses of nitrogen fertilizers can decrease of weed numbers.
Other researchers [86,87] note that ensuring an optimal level of crop fertilization can be an important part of integrated weed control, as it fortifies crop plants and gives them advantages in competition with weeds, thus reducing their number.

3.2.3. Influence of the Agricultural Years in the Evolution of Weeding of Winter Wheat Crop

The increase in average temperature from 9.5 °C to 11.1 °C contributed to weed infestation in the soil, with the temperature change having an effect on both emergence and development. A study by Lee (2011) [88] stated that the emergence and flowering of Chenopodium album and Setaria viridis were advanced by a high number of days (26 and 50 days for Chenopodium album and 35 and 31.5 days for Setaria viridis, respectively). The change in tillage system also made a significant contribution to the increase in weeding evolution (Table 4) for both the PD species, where statistically significant differences were identified, and the AM species, where the difference from the first year of study was significant (tillage in the last years with BROTE of the conservative system).
According to the results obtained by Seipel et al. (2022) [89], changes in temperature and humidity account for only 3% of the total variation in the weed community, in contrast to authors such as Dupre et al. (2022) [90], who stated that an increase in summer temperatures together with a reduction in water availability could have an impact on the weed community.
From the studies conducted by Tóth et al. (2025) [65], it was found that weed infestation was lower in low rainfall years (3.01%) than in years with a rich rainfall regime (5.25%), and that the Xanthium italicum species was more correlated with a dry climate and Chenopodium album species with a rainy climate. Mohammed et al. (2025) [91] stated that the invasiveness of perennial species such as Cardaria draba is favored by the dispersal of seeds and fruit by wind and rainfall over long distances; thus this species is found in many geographical areas. The effectiveness of herbicides, used to control weeds, is reduced in years with heavy spring–summer rains, and as a result the degree of weediness is higher, according to Wesołowska et al. (2022) [92].

3.2.4. Factor Interaction Influence on Weed Infestation

The agrotechnical measures applied in the 11 years of experimentation influenced the number of weeds per m−2 (Figure 4). A reduction in the number of weeds can be observed in the case of CS, from the beginning of the experimentation (2013/2014) until now (2023/2024), regardless of the fertilization level—from 33.7 to 31.1 weeds per m−2 in the variant with one fertilization, and from 31 to 30.3 weeds per m−2 in the variant with two mineral fertilizations. In the case of NT, however, a slight increase was observed; from 34.1 to 35.7 weeds per m−2 in the variant with one fertilization and from 34.7 to 35.9 weeds per m−2 in the variant with two mineral fertilizations. Other studies [93] have provided evidence that unconventional tillage systems induce shifts in weed populations, particularly towards perennial weeds, which is a real long-term problem. Annual weeds are controlled very well in the CS, but thrive in no- or minimum-tillage systems, according to Vencill et al. (1994) [94].

3.2.5. Determination of Weeds by the Quantitative Gravimetric Method

Over the course of 11 agricultural years, we consistently observed a higher level of weed infestation in the no-tillage system compared to the conventional tillage system (Figure 5). This trend was evident across all weed categories—monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous, annual, and perennial. The no-tillage variant also exhibited a broader range of weed density per square meter. Among the weed groups, annual dicotyledonous weeds were the most prevalent, reaching a maximum of 23 weeds per square meter in the no-tillage system, 4 more than in the conventional tillage system. Overall, the distribution of weed numbers over the 11-year period was generally symmetrical, with the mean and median values closely aligned in most cases.
Seipel et al. (2019) [95] and Tubiello et al. (2007) [96] stated that high temperatures and drought increase stress on cultivated plants, and at the same time, they can change weed communities, while Peters et al. (2014) [97] argued that these climatic conditions favor thermophilic weeds that germinate and sprout later.
Over the 11-year period, when analyzing weed biomass per square meter by weed category, the classical tillage system showed a broader range of variation in the mass of annual dicotyledonous weeds. However, the variation generally remained between 73 and 119 g per square meter. In contrast, the no-tillage system exhibited a higher overall infestation level for this weed class, typically ranging from 103 to 123 g per square meter, with only one year recording a lower value of 72 g per square meter. For perennial dicotyledonous weeds, the classical tillage system averaged 22 g per square meter less biomass over the 11 years. Similarly, perennial monocotyledonous weeds also showed lower infestation levels under the classical system. However, in the case of annual monocotyledonous weeds, the classical system displayed a higher average infestation compared to no-tillage, with both the mean and median values exceeding those of the no-tillage variant (Figure 6).
The highest total weed biomass under the classic tillage system, expressed in tons per hectare for each weed class and type, was recorded in the 2021–2022 agricultural year. In the no-tillage system, the peak biomass of perennial dicotyledonous weeds (1.6 t ha−1) also occurred in 2021–2022. The maximum for annual dicotyledonous weeds (1.4 t ha−1) was observed in 2017–2018, while the highest values for annual monocotyledonous weeds (1.7 t ha−1) and perennial monocotyledonous weeds (0.07 t/ha) were registered in 2020–2021 (Figure 7).
The high degree of weediness may also be due to the resistance of several weed species to the herbicides used [98], and research by Seipel et al. (2022) [89] notes that in no-till chemically managed systems, there was a low weeding degree and a reduced biodiversity of weed species.
The expression of the yield potential of the winter wheat variety Andrada, according to the applied technology, weeding degree, and climatic conditions in the period 2013/2014–2023/2024, is presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. As can be seen from the data presented, the agricultural year, fertilization level, and the degree of weediness of the crop influenced wheat yield. In drought years, yields were lower and the degree of weediness was higher (2021/2022 agricultural year with the yield under 5000 kg ha−1). This is mainly due to the adaptability of weeds to less favorable conditions. The very low rainfall in the autumn (October 11.6 mm, November 20.5 mm) negatively influenced the early vegetative stages of wheat (germination–sprouting–rooting–first leaf formation–first leaf formation), and the precipitation deficit recorded in February–April also had a negative impact on wheat tillering–stem elongation. In the absence of soil moisture, the plants did not assimilate the mineral fertilizers applied—an effect also observed by Plett et al. (2020) [99]. In other research, including that by Angidi et al., 2025 [100], it has been observed that stress due to climatic factors (drought and heat) adversely affects crop physiology, leading to yield losses [101]. The regression analyses illustrating the relationship between yield and weed infestation levels in the two tillage systems reveal a significant decline in production under high weed pressure. This negative correlation was stronger and more pronounced when sowing was performed using the classical tillage method compared to the no-tillage system.
Analyzing yield in relation to weed infestation, with respect to the fertilization factor, once again reveals a strong negative impact—as weed density increases, wheat yield decreases. This negative relationship was notably more pronounced under the second fertilization regime (r = −0.76, Figure 9).

4. Conclusions

Thirty-three species of weeds were present in this winter wheat experiment, most of which belonged to the AD group, representing over 50% of the total species present in both tillage systems. Due to the warmer winters (no frost, positive temperatures) registered in recent years and with the application of the no-tillage system, the annual species Bromus tectorum also expanded alongside perennial species (DP and AP). The presence of topsoil mulch does not appear to have had a significant effect on controlling these species. The data indicate that the yields obtained via the NT and CS systems were of similar values, and additional fertilization led to yield increases of around 300–500 kg ha−1 for both tillage variants. Given the current trends in integrated weed control and the conservation of plant biodiversity, the use of mulch as part of a no-tillage or minimum-tillage system is emerging as a viable alternative to conventional tillage, providing an effective means of reducing weed infestation and reducing reliance on chemical treatments, at least until herbicide use can be significantly reduced.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C. and C.U.; methodology, T.R. and A.P.; software, C.U.; validation, F.C. and A.Ș.; formal analysis P.I.M. and A.P.; investigation C.C., C.U., I.G., and A.P.; resources, C.C., F.C., and P.I.M.; data curation, A.Ș., T.R. and A.I.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C. and A.I.P.; writing—review and editing, I.G. and R.E.C.; visualization, R.E.C. and A.I.P.; supervision, A.Ș. and T.R.; project administration, F.C.; funding acquisition, A.I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Project ADER no. 123/17.07.2023: Conservation of soil resources through the use of technological components of regenerative agriculture in order to obtain economic and sustainable harvests of straw cereals in the Transylvanian Plateau.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bhattacharjee, S.; Panja, A.; Panda, M.; Dutta, S.; Dutta, S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, D.; Yadav, M.R.; Minkina, T.; Kalinitchenko, V.P.; et al. How Did Research on Conservation Agriculture Evolve over the Years? A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jat, H.S.; Datta, A.; Sharma, P.C.; Kumar, V.; Yadav, A.K.; Choudhary, M.; Choudhary, V.; Gathala, M.K.; Sharma, D.K.; Jat, M.L.; et al. Assessing Soil Properties and Nutrient Availability under Conservation Agriculture Practices in a Reclaimed Sodic Soil in Cereal-Based Systems of North-West India. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2018, 64, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hobbs, P.R.; Sayre, K.; Gupta, R. The Role of Conservation Agriculture in Sustainable Agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 363, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jug, D.; Jug, I.; Brozović, B.; Šeremešić, S.; Dolijanović, Ž.; Zsembeli, J.; Ujj, A.; Marjanovic, J.; Smutny, V.; Dušková, S.; et al. Conservation Soil Tillage: Bridging Science and Farmer Expectations—An Overview from Southern to Northern Europe. Agriculture 2025, 15, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khanal, U.; Stott, K.J.; Armstrong, R.; Nuttall, J.G.; Henry, F.; Christy, B.P.; Mitchell, M.; Riffkin, P.A.; Wallace, A.J.; McCaskill, M.; et al. Intercropping—Evaluating the Advantages to Broadacre Systems. Agriculture 2021, 11, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.C.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the Plow over 10,000 Years and the Rationale for No-till Farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yuan, X.; Li, S.; Chen, J.; Yu, H.; Yang, T.; Wang, C.; Huang, S.; Chen, H.; Ao, X. Impacts of Global Climate Change on Agricultural Production: A Comprehensive Review. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wu, Y.; Meng, S.; Liu, C.; Gao, W.; Liang, X.-Z. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research for Climate Impact on Agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1191305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chețan, F.; Hirișcău, D.; Rusu, T.; Bărdaș, M.; Chețan, C.; Șimon, A.; Moraru, P.I. Yield, Protein Content and Water-Related Physiologies of Spring Wheat Affected by Fertilizer System and Weather Conditions. Agronomy 2024, 14, 921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Yakupoğlu, T.; Dindaroğlu, T.; Terol, E.; Mora-Navarro, G.; Arabameri, A.; Radziemska, M.; Novara, A.; Kavian, A.; et al. Tillage Versus No-Tillage. Soil Properties and Hydrology in an Organic Persimmon Farm in Eastern Iberian Peninsula. Water 2020, 12, 1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mihu, G.-D.; Aostăcioaei, T.G.; Ghelbere, C.; Calistru, A.-E.; Țopa, D.C.; Jităreanu, G. Exploring Soil Hydro-Physical Improvements Under No-Tillage: A Sustainable Approach for Soil Health. Agriculture 2025, 15, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Negrete-Rodríguez, M.d.l.L.X.; Conde-Barajas, E.; Silva-Martínez, G.A.; Acosta-García, G.; Ramírez-Medina, H.; Tristán-Flores, F.E.; Bedolla-Rivera, H.I. Tillage and Its Effect on Agricultural Soils: A Quality Index Approach. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. De Sousa, T.; Ribeiro, M.; Sabença, C.; Igrejas, G. The 10,000-Year Success Story of Wheat! Foods 2021, 10, 2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kheiralipour, K.; Brandão, M.; Holka, M.; Choryński, A. A Review of Environmental Impacts of Wheat Production in Different Agrotechnical Systems. Resources 2024, 13, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Calvo-Carrillo, M.d.l.C.; López-Méndez, O.X.; Carranco-Jáuregui, M.E.; Marines, J.; Calvo-Carrillo, M.d.l.C.; López-Méndez, O.X.; Carranco-Jáuregui, M.E.; Marines, J. Evaluación fisicoquímica y sensorial de un pan tipo baguette utilizando harinas de trigo (Triticum spp.) y chícharo (Pisum sativum L.). Biotecnia 2020, 22, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rai, S.; Kaur, A.; Singh, B.; Minhas, K.S. Quality Characteristics of Bread Produced from Wheat, Rice and Maize Flours. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 786–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Darguza, M.; Gaile, Z. The Productivity of Crop Rotation Depending on the Included Plants and Soil Tillage. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guo, X.W.; Fernando, W.G.D.; Entz, M. Effects of Crop Rotation and Tillage on Blackleg Disease of Canola. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2005, 27, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Herz, P.; Böck, A.; Wagentristl, H.; Moitzi, G.; Klimek-Kopyra, A.; Bernas, J.; Lošák, T.; Ghorbani, M.; Amirahmadi, E.; et al. Crop Growth Analysis of Autumn- and Spring-Sown Wheat–Pea Intercrops. Agronomy 2025, 15, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Castellini, M.; Fornaro, F.; Garofalo, P.; Giglio, L.; Rinaldi, M.; Ventrella, D.; Vitti, C.; Vonella, A.V. Effects of No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage on Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Fine Textured Soils under Winter Wheat. Water 2019, 11, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ma, Y.; Li, Z.; Xu, Y.; Li, C.; Ding, H.; Li, C.; Tang, Q.; Liu, M.; Hou, J. The Development of No-Tillage Seeding Technology for Conservation Tillage—A Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gawęda, D.; Haliniarz, M.; Bronowicka-Mielniczuk, U.; Łukasz, J. Weed Infestation and Health of the Soybean Crop Depending on Cropping System and Tillage System. Agriculture 2020, 10, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Winkler, J.; Dvořák, J.; Hosa, J.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Vaverková, M.D. Impact of Conservation Tillage Technologies on the Biological Relevance of Weeds. Land 2022, 12, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andruszczak, S. The Influence of Tillage and Chemical Plant Protection on Weed Infestation of Winter Spelt Wheat Cultivars (Triticum aestivum ssp. Spelta) Growing in Continuous Crop. Ann. UMCS Sec. E Agric. 2018, 72, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Parylak, D.; Pytlarz, E. Weed Infestation of Winter Wheat Continuous Cropping after Implementation of Catch Crop and Biostimulant Nano-GroZachwaszczenie Monokultury Pszenicy Ozimej Po Zastosowaniu Międzyplonu Ścierniskowego i Biostymulatora Nano-Gro. Prog. Plant Prot. 2016, 56, 343–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  27. Van Elsen, T.; Hotze, C.; Meyer, S.; Gottwald, F.; Wehke, S. Empfehlungen für die Bewirtschaftung von Schutzäckern. Germany, 2009. Available online: http://www.schutzaecker.de (accessed on 3 June 2025).
  28. Naeem, M.; Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Farooq, S. Weed Flora Composition of Different Barley-based Cropping Systems under Conventional and Conservation Tillage Practices. Phytoparasitica 2021, 49, 751–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Blackshaw, R.E.; Larney, F.O.; Lindwall, C.W.; Kozub, G.C. Crop Rotation and Tillage Effects on Weed Populations on the Semi-Arid Canadian Prairies. Weed Technol. 1994, 8, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Jabran, K.; Hussain, M. Impact of Different Crop Rotations and Tillage Systems on Weed Infestation and Productivity of Bread Wheat. Crop Prot. 2016, 89, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ionescu, N. Research on Reducing the Winter Wheat Crop Weed Encroachment. Analele Institutului Național Cercet. Dezvoltare Agric. Fundulea 2011, 79, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  32. Radosevich, S.; Holt, J.; Ghersa, C. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  33. Anwar, M.P.; Islam, A.K.M.M.; Yeasmin, S.; Rashid, M.H.; Juraimi, A.S.; Ahmed, S.; Shrestha, A. Weeds and Their Responses to Management Efforts in A Changing Climate. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chicouene, D. Mechanical Destruction of Weeds. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 27, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Berca, M. Chapter 2. Biology of Weeds. In Integrated Weed Management; Ceres: Bucharest, Romania, 2004; pp. 46–52. ISBN 973-40-0652-5. [Google Scholar]
  36. Feledyn-Szewczyk, B.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Lenc, L.; Stalenga, J. Rating of Spring Wheat Varieties (Triticum aestivum L.) According to Their Suitability for Organic Agriculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kubiak, A.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Niewiadomska, A.; Pilarska, A.A. The Problem of Weed Infestation of Agricultural Plantations vs. the Assumptions of the European Biodiversity Strategy. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vykydalová, L.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Děkanovský, I.; Hrudová, E.; Lumbantobing, Y.R.; Michutová, M.; Winkler, J. The Response of Insects and Weeds within the Crop to Variation in Sowing Density of Canola. Land 2024, 13, 1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oerke, E.-C. Crop Losses to Pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Soil Contamination, Risk Assessment and Remediation. In Environmental Risk Assessment of Soil Contamination; InTech: Houston, TX, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-953-51-1235-8.
  41. Tahat, M.M.; Alananbeh, K.M.; Othman, Y.A.; Leskovar, D.I. Soil Health and Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rose, M.T.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; Scanlan, C.A.; Rose, T.J.; Vancov, T.; Kimber, S.; Kennedy, I.R.; Kookana, R.S.; Van Zwieten, L. Impact of Herbicides on Soil Biology and Function. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Advances in Agronomy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 136, pp. 133–220. [Google Scholar]
  43. Flynn, D.F.B.; Gogol-Prokurat, M.; Nogeire, T.; Molinari, N.; Richers, B.T.; Lin, B.B.; Simpson, N.; Mayfield, M.M.; DeClerck, F. Loss of Functional Diversity under Land Use Intensification across Multiple Taxa. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Koch, M.A.; Meyer, N.; Engelhardt, M.; Thiv, M.; Bernhardt, K.-G.; Michling, F. Morphological and Genetic Variation of Highly Endangered Bromus Species and the Status of These Neolithic Weeds in Central Europe. Plant Syst. Evol. 2016, 302, 515–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fried, G.; Petit, S.; Dessaint, F.; Reboud, X. Arable Weed Decline in Northern France: Crop Edges as Refugia for Weed Conservation? Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schumacher, M.; Ohnmacht, S.; Rosenstein, R.; Gerhards, R. How Management Factors Influence Weed Communities of Cereals, Their Diversity and Endangered Weed Species in Central Europe. Agriculture 2018, 8, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Popescu, V. Ferma Magazine. 10 Reasons to Check your Level of Weeding. Available online: https://revista-ferma.ro/10-motive-pentru-controlul-gradului-de-imburuienare/ (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  48. Ona, A.D.; Muntean, L.; Haș, V.V.; Varga, A. Combining Ability for Yield of Single-Cross Hybrids Derived from Maize Composites (Zea mays L.). Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobot. 2019, 47, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Florea, N.; Munteanu, I. The Romanian System of Soil Taxonomy (SRTS); Ed Estfalia: Bucharest, Romania, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. MESP (1987) Pedologic Studies Elaboration Metodology. Pedologic and Agrochemical Ins. Bucharest, 1-3.—References—Scientific Research Publishing. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=873854 (accessed on 8 July 2025).
  51. Chețan, F.; Chețan, C.; Russu, F.; Mureșanu, F. The Influence of Tillage System on the Weed and the Maize Yields, in Different Pedoclimatic Condition of Transylvanian Plain, during 2007–2018. Rom. Agric. Res. 2020, 37, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Turda Weather Station. Northern Transylvania Regional Meteorological Center Cluj. Available online: https://www.meteoromania.ro/ (accessed on 29 June 2025).
  53. AMEROPA Group Represented by AZOMURES Factory. Str. Gheorghe Doja Nr. 300, Târgu Mureș 540237, Mureș, România. Available online: https://www.Azomures.com (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  54. Maschio Gaspardo Campodarsego. Via Marcello, 73, 35011 Campodarsego PD, Italia. Available online: https://www.maschiogaspardo.com/it/web/Italia/Le-Nostre-Sedi (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  55. Bayer Crop Science SRL. Șos. București—Ploiești Nr. 1A, Clădirea B, Etajul 1, Sector 1, 013681 București, Romania. Available online: https://www.cropscience.bayer.ro/contact (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  56. Innvigo Better Chemistry. Str. Madach Imre Nr.64, 400464 Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Available online: https://ro.innvigo.com/p/Apis-200-Se (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  57. SC Adama Agricultural Solutions SRL. Piata Presei Libere 3-5, Cladirea City Gate, Turnul de Nord, Sector 1, 013702, Bucuresti. Available online: https://www.adama.com/romania/ro/produse-pentru-protectia-plantelor/insecticide/Mavrik2f (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  58. WINTERSTEIGER Seedmech GmbH Wintersteigerstrasse 14910 Ried Im Innkreis, Austria. Available online: https://www.wintersteiger.com/seedmech/en/products/harvesters/plot-combines (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  59. SR EN ISO 712-1:2024; Cereals and Cereal Products. Humidity Determination. Part 1: Reference Method. Available online: https://magazin.asro.ro/ro/standard/284269 (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  60. State Institute for Variety Testing and Registration (ISTIS) Bucharest. Available online: https://istis.ro/catalog-oficial (accessed on 4 June 2025).
  61. Andrada Wheat Variety. Available online: https://scdaturda.ro/Andrada (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  62. Multilab, Drying Stove Binder, Baia de Arama Nr.1, Sector 2—Bucuresti. Available online: https://www.multilab.ro/etuve/etuve_termice.html (accessed on 11 June 2025).
  63. Ionescu, N.; Trașcă, F.; Mincă, G.; Trașcă, G.; Voica, M.; Ciodaru, I. Penescu Aurelian Weeds Mapping from Wheat and Maize Crops. An. I.N.C.D.A. Fundulea 2016, 84, 190–197. [Google Scholar]
  64. Poly Fact. ANOVA and Duncan’s Test PC Program for Variant Analyses Made for Completely Randomized Polyfactorial Experiences; USAMV: Cluj, Napoca, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tóth, E.; Dorner, Z.; Nagy, J.G.; Zalai, M. How Weed Flora Evolves in Cereal Fields in Relation to the Agricultural Environment and Farming Practices in Different Sub-Regions of Eastern Hungary. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Salehi, B.; Shivaprasad Shetty, M.; Anil Kumar, N.V.; Živković, J.; Calina, D.; Oana Docea, A.; Emamzadeh-Yazdi, S.; Sibel Kılıç, C.; Goloshvili, T.; Nicola, S.; et al. Veronica Plants—Drifting from Farm to Traditional Healing, Food Application, and Phytopharmacology. Molecules 2019, 24, 2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Brust, J.; Weber, J.; Gerhards, R. Do cover crop mixtures have the same ability to suppress weeds as competitive monoculture cover crops? JKA 2014, 443, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Casagrande, M.; Peigné, J.; Payet, V.; Mäder, P.; Sans, F.X.; Blanco-Moreno, J.M.; Antichi, D.; Bàrberi, P.; Beeckman, A.; Bigongiali, F.; et al. Organic Farmers’ Motivations and Challenges for Adopting Conservation Agriculture in Europe. Org. Agr. 2016, 6, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gandía, M.L.; Del Monte, J.P.; Tenorio, J.L.; Santín-Montanyá, M.I. The Influence of Rainfall and Tillage on Wheat Yield Parameters and Weed Population in Monoculture versus Rotation Systems. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Walters, S.A.; Kindhart, J.D. Reduced Tillage Practices for Summer Squash Production in Southern Illinois. HortTechnology 2002, 12, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Young, F.L.; Jr, A.G.O.; Alldredge, J.R. Postharvest Tillage Reduces Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum L.) Infestations in Winter Wheat. Weed Technol. 2014, 28, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bradley, B.A. Regional Analysis of the Impacts of Climate Change on Cheatgrass Invasion Shows Potential Risk and Opportunity. Glob. Change Biol. 2009, 15, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Măturaru, G.; Șerban, M.; Partal, E. Selectivity and Efficiency of Herbicides Applied in Autumn to Control Annual Weeds in Winter Wheat. An. I.N.C.D.A. Fundulea 2019, 87, 175–181. [Google Scholar]
  74. Woźniak, A. Effect of Tillage System on the Structure of Weed Infestation of Winter Wheat. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 16, e1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nichols, V.; Verhulst, N.; Cox, R.; Govaerts, B. Weed Dynamics and Conservation Agriculture Principles: A Review. Field Crops Res. 2015, 183, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kumar, V.; Singh, S.; Chhokar, R.S.; Malik, R.K.; Brainard, D.C.; Ladha, J.K. Weed Management Strategies to Reduce Herbicide Use in Zero-till Rice-Wheat Cropping Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sims, B.; Corsi, S.; Gbehounou, G.; Kienzle, J.; Taguchi, M.; Friedrich, T. Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers. Agriculture 2018, 8, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gerhards, R. Weed Suppression Ability and Yield Impact of Living Mulch in Cereal Crops. Agriculture 2018, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Brandsæter, L.O.; Goul Thomsen, M.; Wærnhus, K.; Fykse, H. Effects of Repeated Clover Undersowing in Spring Cereals and Stubble Treatments in Autumn on Elymus repens, Sonchus arvensis and Cirsium arvense. Crop Prot. 2012, 32, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Oppong, J.N.; Akumu, C.E.; Dennis, S. Assessing Weed Canopy Cover in No-Till and Conventional Tillage Plots in Winter Wheat Production Using Drone Data. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tørresen, K.S.; Skuterud, R.; Tandsæther, H.J.; Bredesen Hagemo, M. Long-Term Experiments with Reduced Tillage in Spring Cereals. I. Effects on Weed Flora, Weed Seedbank and Grain Yield. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Costea, M.; Weaver, S.E.; Tardif, F.J. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 130. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Watson and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2004, 84, 631–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bana, R.S.; Kumar, V.; Sangwan, S.; Singh, T.; Kumari, A.; Dhanda, S.; Dawar, R.; Godara, S.; Singh, V. Seed Germination Ecology of Chenopodium Album and Chenopodium Murale. Biology 2022, 11, 1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Biberdžić, M.; Jelić, M.; Deletić, N.; Barać, S.; Stojković, S.; Stanković, S.; Stamenković, S. The Effect of Fertilization System on Weed Infestation and Grain Yield of Small Grains on Acid Soils. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 43, 92. [Google Scholar]
  85. Knežević, M.; Stipešević, B.; Knežević, I.; Lončarić, Z. Weed populations of winter wheat as affected by tillage and nitrogen. Ekologia 2007, 26, 190–200. [Google Scholar]
  86. Travlos, I.S.; Cheimona, N.; Roussis, I.; Bilalis, D.J. Weed-Species Abundance and Diversity Indices in Relation to Tillage Systems and Fertilization. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 347868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kaur, S.; Kaur, R.; Chauhan, B.S. Understanding Crop-Weed-Fertilizer-Water Interactions and Their Implications for Weed Management in Agricultural Systems. Crop Prot. 2018, 103, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lee, J.-S. Combined Effect of Elevated CO2 and Temperature on the Growth and Phenology of Two Annual C3 and C4 Weedy Species. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Seipel, T.; Ishaq, S.L.; Larson, C.; Menalled, F.D. Weed Communities in Winter Wheat: Responses to Cropping Systems under Different Climatic Conditions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. DuPre, M.E.; Seipel, T.; Bourgault, M.; Boss, D.L.; Menalled, F.D. Predicted Climate Conditions and Cover Crop Composition Modify Weed Communities in Semiarid Agroecosystems. Weed Res. 2022, 62, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mohammed, S.; Steinbrecher, T.; Leubner-Metzger, G.; Mummenhoff, K. Differential Primary Seed and Fruit Dispersal Mechanisms and Dispersal Biomechanics in Invasive Dehiscent and Indehiscent-Fruited Lepidium Species. Plants 2025, 14, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wesołowska, S.; Daniłkiewicz, D.; Gawęda, D.; Haliniarz, M.; Rusecki, H.; Łukasz, J. The Effect of Tillage Systems and Weed Control Methods on the Yield and Quality of Spelt Grain (Triticum aestivum ssp. Spelta L.). Agriculture 2022, 12, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Thomas, A.G.; Derksen, D.A.; Blackshaw, R.E.; Acker, R.C.V.; Légère, A.; Watson, P.R.; Turnbull, G.C. A Multistudy Approach to Understanding Weed Population Shifts in Medium- to Long-Term Tillage Systems. Weed Sci. 2004, 52, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Vencill, W.K.; Banks, P.A. Effects of Tillage Systems and Weed Management on Weed Populations in Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 1994, 42, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Seipel, T.; Ishaq, S.L.; Menalled, F.D. Agroecosystem Resilience Is Modified by Management System via Plant–Soil Feedbacks. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2019, 39, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tubiello, F.N.; Soussana, J.-F.; Howden, S.M. Crop and Pasture Response to Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19686–19690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Peters, K.; Breitsameter, L.; Gerowitt, B. Impact of Climate Change on Weeds in Agriculture: A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 707–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Canon, S. Weeds Developing Resistance to Widely Used Herbicide, Some Say. Available online: https://www.iatp.org/news/weeds-developing-resistance-to-widely-used-herbicide-some-say (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  99. Plett, D.C.; Ranathunge, K.; Melino, V.J.; Kuya, N.; Uga, Y.; Kronzucker, H.J. The Intersection of Nitrogen Nutrition and Water Use in Plants: New Paths toward Improved Crop Productivity. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 4452–4468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Angidi, S.; Madankar, K.; Tehseen, M.M.; Bhatla, A. Advanced High-Throughput Phenotyping Techniques for Managing Abiotic Stress in Agricultural Crops—A Comprehensive Review. Crops 2025, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Korba, J.; Šařec, P.; Novák, V.; Brož, P.; Dolan, A.; Dědina, M. Digestate Application Methods and Rates with Regard to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Crop Conditions. Agronomy 2024, 14, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 01904 g001
Figure 1. Temperature data of agricultural years 2013/2014–2023/2024 and multiannual average (MMA) at ARDS Turda. Temperature (°C)—monthly average; 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024—agricultural years; MMA—monthly multiannual average (67 years during 1957–2024).
Figure 1. Temperature data of agricultural years 2013/2014–2023/2024 and multiannual average (MMA) at ARDS Turda. Temperature (°C)—monthly average; 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024—agricultural years; MMA—monthly multiannual average (67 years during 1957–2024).
Agronomy 15 01904 g001
Agronomy 15 01904 g002
Figure 2. Rainfall data of agricultural years 2013/2014–2023/2024 and multiannual average (MMA) at ARDS Turda. Rainfall (mm)—monthly amount; 2013/2014; 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024—agricultural years; MMA—monthly multiannual average (67 years during 1957–2024).
Figure 2. Rainfall data of agricultural years 2013/2014–2023/2024 and multiannual average (MMA) at ARDS Turda. Rainfall (mm)—monthly amount; 2013/2014; 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024—agricultural years; MMA—monthly multiannual average (67 years during 1957–2024).
Agronomy 15 01904 g002
Agronomy 15 01904 g003
Figure 3. Presence of weed species (AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots) amongst the winter wheat crop in the two tillage variants (CS—conventional soil tillage system; NT—no-tillage system) in the period 2013–2024.
Figure 3. Presence of weed species (AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots) amongst the winter wheat crop in the two tillage variants (CS—conventional soil tillage system; NT—no-tillage system) in the period 2013–2024.
Agronomy 15 01904 g003
Agronomy 15 01904 g004
Figure 4. Total numbers of weeds (per m−2) determined in the winter wheat crop under the two tillage systems (CS—conventional soil tillage system, NT—no-tillage system) and the two mineral fertilization levels (I fert 200 kg ha−1 NPK 20-20-0; II fert 200 kg ha−1 NPK 20-20-0 + 119 kg ha−1 ammonium nitrate), 2013/2014 and 2023/2024.
Figure 4. Total numbers of weeds (per m−2) determined in the winter wheat crop under the two tillage systems (CS—conventional soil tillage system, NT—no-tillage system) and the two mineral fertilization levels (I fert 200 kg ha−1 NPK 20-20-0; II fert 200 kg ha−1 NPK 20-20-0 + 119 kg ha−1 ammonium nitrate), 2013/2014 and 2023/2024.
Agronomy 15 01904 g004
Agronomy 15 01904 g005
Figure 5. Total number of weeds species (m−2) during the 11 agricultural years (2013/2014–2023/2024) in CS and NT. Weed species: AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots. Conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT); weeds species per m−2.
Figure 5. Total number of weeds species (m−2) during the 11 agricultural years (2013/2014–2023/2024) in CS and NT. Weed species: AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots. Conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT); weeds species per m−2.
Agronomy 15 01904 g005
Agronomy 15 01904 g006
Figure 6. Quantitative measure of weed species (g m−2) during the 11 agricultural years (2013/2014–2023/2024). Weed species: AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots. Conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT).
Figure 6. Quantitative measure of weed species (g m−2) during the 11 agricultural years (2013/2014–2023/2024). Weed species: AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots. Conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT).
Agronomy 15 01904 g006
Agronomy 15 01904 g007
Figure 7. Quantitative distribution of weeds species (t ha−1) during the 11 agricultural years (2013/2014–2023/2024). Weed species: AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots. Conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT); weeds species t ha−1.
Figure 7. Quantitative distribution of weeds species (t ha−1) during the 11 agricultural years (2013/2014–2023/2024). Weed species: AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots. Conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT); weeds species t ha−1.
Agronomy 15 01904 g007
Agronomy 15 01904 g008
Figure 8. The yield of winter wheat (kg ha−1) according to the technology applied and weeding degree (no. of weeds per m−2) during 2013/2014–2023/2024. Soil tillage system: conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT); 12, 31—number of weeds average m−2.
Figure 8. The yield of winter wheat (kg ha−1) according to the technology applied and weeding degree (no. of weeds per m−2) during 2013/2014–2023/2024. Soil tillage system: conventional tillage system (CS); no-tillage (NT); 12, 31—number of weeds average m−2.
Agronomy 15 01904 g008
Agronomy 15 01904 g009
Figure 9. The yield of the winter wheat (kg ha−1) according to fertilization and weeding degree (no. weeds m−2) during 2013/2014–2023/2024. The fertilization level: I—200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0), II—200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) +119 kg ha−1 ammonium nitrate (33.5% N); 22—number of weeds average per m−2.
Figure 9. The yield of the winter wheat (kg ha−1) according to fertilization and weeding degree (no. weeds m−2) during 2013/2014–2023/2024. The fertilization level: I—200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0), II—200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) +119 kg ha−1 ammonium nitrate (33.5% N); 22—number of weeds average per m−2.
Agronomy 15 01904 g009
Table 1. Species and average number of weeds determined in the winter wheat experiment in the two soil tillage systems, ARDS Turda 2013–2024. Soil tillage systems: CS—conventional soil tillage system, NT—no-tillage system; No. of weeds m−2—weeds number per m−2.
Table 1. Species and average number of weeds determined in the winter wheat experiment in the two soil tillage systems, ARDS Turda 2013–2024. Soil tillage systems: CS—conventional soil tillage system, NT—no-tillage system; No. of weeds m−2—weeds number per m−2.
No.No. of Species/EPPO Code/Botanical GroupTillage System/No. of Weeds m−2
CSNT
1.Xanthium strumariumXANSTAD35
2.Amaranthus retroflexusAMARE12
3.Chenopodium albumCHEAR11
4.Galinsoga parvifloraGASPA11
5.Fallopia convolvulusPOLCO11
6.Polygonum arenastrumPOLAR11
7.Capsella rubellaCAPRU11
8.Geranium dissectumGERDI11
9.Veronica persicaVERPE10
10.Sonchus oleraceusSONOL12
11.Papaver dubiumPAPDU11
12.Galeopsis bifidaGAEBI11
13.Galium spuriumGALSP11
14.Consolida regalisCNSRE11
15.Myosotis arvensisMYOAR11
16.Stellaria mediaSTEME10
17.Viola arvensisVIOAR12
18.Hibiscus trionumHIBTR21
19.Fumaria officinalisFUMOF10
20.Anagallis arvensisANGAR10
1.Convolvulus arvensisCONARPD12
2.Taraxacum officinaleTAROF01
3.Lepidium drabaCADDR01
4.Cirsium arvenseCIRAR23
5.Rubus caesiusRUBCA12
6.Rorippa armoracioidesRORAR11
7.Lathyrus tuberosusLTHTU12
8.Achillea millefoliumACHMI01
1.Echinochloa hispidulaECHCIAM11
2.Bromus tectorumBROTE25
3.Avena fatuaAVEFA11
4.Setaria helvolaSETIT21
1.Elymus repensAGRREPM13
TOTAL 33 species3647
Note: annual dicots (AD), perennial dicots (PD), annual monocots (AM), perennial monocots (PM); CS—conventional soil tillage system, NT—no-tillage system.
Table 2. Influence of the tillage system (CS and NT) in the evolution of weeds in winter wheat crops with different weed species.
Table 2. Influence of the tillage system (CS and NT) in the evolution of weeds in winter wheat crops with different weed species.
FactorWeed SpeciesNo. of
Weeds m−2		%Differences
Soil tillage system (A)a1 CSAD20.3100.00.00 Ct.
a2 NT20.8102.40.5 ns
LSD (p 5%) = 2.8; LSD (p 1%) = 6.6; LSD (p 0.1%) = 21
a1 CSPD7.4100.00.00 Ct.
a2 NT8.8118.91.4 *
LSD (p 5%) = 2.9; LSD (p 1%) = 6.8; LSD (p 0.1%) = 21.6
a1 CSAM5.2100.00.00 Ct.
a2 NT4.178.8−1.1 o
LSD (p 5%) = 1.9; LSD (p 1%) = 4.4; LSD (p 0.1%) = 13.9
a1 CSPM1.2100.00.00 Ct.
a2 NT1.9158.40.7 *
LSD (p 5%) = 1.9; LSD (p 1%) = 4.4; LSD (p 0.1%) = 13.9
Tillage systems: a1 CS—conventional system, a2 NT—no tillage. AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots; Ct.—control variant; * positive significance at the 5% level; o negative significance at the 5% level; ns no significance.
Table 3. Influence of mineral fertilization in the evolution of weeding of winter wheat crops, with different weed species.
Table 3. Influence of mineral fertilization in the evolution of weeding of winter wheat crops, with different weed species.
FactorWeed
Species		No. of Weeds m−2%Differences
Mineral
fertilization (B)		b1 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0)AD18.8100.00.00 Ct.
b2 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) + 119 kg ha−1 Ammonium nitrate22.2118.13.3 **
LSD (p 5%) = 1.9; LSD (p 1%) = 2.8; LSD (p 0.1%) = 4.2
b1 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0)PD8.4100.00.00 Ct.
b2 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) + 119 kg ha−1 Ammonium nitrate7.892.8−0.6 ns
LSD (p 5%) =1.1; LSD (p 1%) = 1.5; LSD (p 0.1%) = 2.3
b1 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0)AM5100.00.00 Ct.
b2 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0)
+ 119 kg ha−1 Ammonium nitrate 		4.284.0−0.8 o
LSD (p 5%) = 0.8; LSD (p 1%) = 1.1; LSD (p 0.1%) = 1.6
b1 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0)PM1.5100.00.00 Ct.
b2 200 kg ha−1 NPK (20-20-0) + 119 kg ha−1 Ammonium nitrate 1.6106.60.1 ns
LSD (p 5%) = 0.6; LSD (p 1%) = 0.8; LSD (p 0.1%) = 1.3
Mineral fertilization level: b1—at sowing, b2—at sowing + in spring. AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots; Ct.—control variant; ** positive significance at the 1% level; o negative significance at the 1% level; ns no significance.
Table 4. Influence of agricultural years in the evolution of weeding of winter wheat crop with different weed species.
Table 4. Influence of agricultural years in the evolution of weeding of winter wheat crop with different weed species.
FactorWeed SpeciesNo. of Weeds m−2%Differences
Agricultural year (C)c1 2013/2014AD20.3100.00.00 Ct.
c2 2023/202420.8102.50.5 ns
LSD (p 5%) = 1.4; LSD (p 1%) = 2.3; LSD (p %) = 4.2
c1 2013/2014PD6.4100.00.00 Ct.
c2 2023/20249.8153.13.4 **
LSD (p 5%) = 2; LSD (p 1%) = 3.3; LSD (p 0.1%) = 6.1
c1 2013/2014AM4.1100.00.00 Ct.
c2 2023/20245.2126.81.1 *
LSD (p 5%) = 1; LSD (p 1%) = 1.5; LSD (p 0.1%) = 2.9
c1 2013/2014PM1.3100.00.00 Ct.
c2 2023/20241.8138.50.5 ns
LSD (p 5%) = 0.8; LSD (p 1%) = 1.4; LSD (p 0.1%) = 2.6
Agricultural year (C): c1 2013/2014—the beginning of the research period; c2 2023/2024—the end of the research period. AD—annual dicots; PD—perennial dicots; AM—annual monocots; PM—perennial monocots; Ct.—control variant; *,** positive significance at the 5% and 1% level; ns no significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chețan, F.; Pop, A.I.; Chețan, C.; Gaga, I.; Șimon, A.; Urdă, C.; Popa, A.; Călugăr, R.E.; Rusu, T.; Moraru, P.I. Impact of Tillage System and Mineral Fertilization on Weed Suppression and Yield of Winter Wheat. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081904

AMA Style

Chețan F, Pop AI, Chețan C, Gaga I, Șimon A, Urdă C, Popa A, Călugăr RE, Rusu T, Moraru PI. Impact of Tillage System and Mineral Fertilization on Weed Suppression and Yield of Winter Wheat. Agronomy. 2025; 15(8):1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081904

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chețan, Felicia, Adrian Ioan Pop, Cornel Chețan, Ioan Gaga, Alina Șimon, Camelia Urdă, Alin Popa, Roxana Elena Călugăr, Teodor Rusu, and Paula Ioana Moraru. 2025. "Impact of Tillage System and Mineral Fertilization on Weed Suppression and Yield of Winter Wheat" Agronomy 15, no. 8: 1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081904

APA Style

Chețan, F., Pop, A. I., Chețan, C., Gaga, I., Șimon, A., Urdă, C., Popa, A., Călugăr, R. E., Rusu, T., & Moraru, P. I. (2025). Impact of Tillage System and Mineral Fertilization on Weed Suppression and Yield of Winter Wheat. Agronomy, 15(8), 1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081904

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop