Designing Cropping Systems to Improve the Management of the Invasive Weed Phalaris minor Retz.
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Study Species
2.3. Influence of Cropping Systems on Seed Dormancy of P. minor
2.4. Influence of Cropping Systems on Seed Germination of P. minor
2.5. Influence of Cropping Systems on Reproductive Characteristics of P. minor
2.6. Statistical Analysis
- (1)
- Germination rate (%) = (Total number of germinated seeds/total seed number) × 100.
- (2)
- Germination index (GI) = ΣGt/Dt (Gt is the germination number at the t day, Dt is the corresponding number of germination days).
- (1)
- Reproductive allocation (g·g−1) = spike biomass/total biomass of each plant.
- (2)
- Reproductive investment (g·g−1) = seed biomass/total biomass of each plant.
- (3)
- Reproductive index (g·g−1) = seed biomass/spike biomass of each plant.
3. Results
3.1. Seed Dormancy Characteristics of P. minor under Different Crop Types and Tillage Methods
3.2. Seed Germination Characteristics of P. minor under Different Crop Types and Tillage Methods
3.3. Effects of Crop Types and Tillage Methods on Reproductive Characteristics of P. minor
3.4. Effects of Crop Types and Tillage Methods on Physiological Traits of P. minor in Reproductive Stages
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L.; Saavedra, M. Spatial distribution of annual grass weed populations in winter cereals. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 629–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Kirkwood, R.C.; Marshall, G. Biology and control of Phalaris minor Retz. (littleseed canarygrass) in wheat. Crop Prot. 1999, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajender, S.C.; Ramesh, K.S. Multiple herbicide resistance in littleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor): A threat to wheat production in India. Weed Biol. Manag. 2008, 8, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chhokar, R.S.; Sharma, R.K.; Chauhan, D.S.; Mongia, A.D. Evaluation of herbicides against Phalaris minor in wheat in north-western Indian plains. Weed Res. 2006, 46, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, G.; Zhang, F.; Li, T.; Shan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, D. Biological characteristics, influence on growth of wheat and its economical threshold of Phalaris paradoxa L. and Phalaris minor Retz. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2010, 43, 4409–4417. [Google Scholar]
- Khawar, J.; Muhammad, F.; Mubshir, H.; Hafeez ur, R.; Muhammad, A.A. Wild oat (Avena fatua L.) and canary grass (Phalaris minor Ritz.) management through allelopathy. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2010, 50, 41–44. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, D.; Yang, X.; Li, Y.; Xiao, W.; Gu, X.; Jing, D.; Li, R.; Fu, Y. Investigation on the occurrence, damage and control of the invasive weed Phalaris spp. in Yunnan Province. Plant Prot. 2018, 44, 167–169. [Google Scholar]
- Travlos, I.S.; Chachalis, D. Glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) is reported in Greece. Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chhokar, R.S.; Malik, R.K. Isoproturon-resistant littleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor) and its response to alternate herbicides. Weed Technol. 2002, 16, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afentouli, C.G.; Eleftherohorinos, I.G. Competition between wheat and canarygrass biotypes and their response to herbicides. Weed Sci. 1999, 47, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amini, R. Allelopathic potential of littleseed canary grass (Phalaris minor Retz.) on seedling growth of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2013, 3, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
- Om, H.; Kumar, S.; Dhiman, S.D. Biology and management of Phalaris minor in rice-wheat system. Crop Prot. 2004, 23, 1157–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, D.M.; Pyšek, P. Plant invasions: Merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2006, 30, 409–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rilov, G.; Schiel, D.R. Seascape-dependent subtidal-intertidal trophic linkages. Ecology 2006, 87, 731–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conn, J.S. Effects of tillage and cropping sequence on Alaskan weed vegetation: Studies on land under cultivation for eleven years. Soil Tillage Res. 1987, 9, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauhan, B.S.; Singh, R.G.; Mahajan, G. Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: A review. Crop Prot. 2012, 38, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Om, H.; Dhiman, S.D.; Hemant, K.; Sajjan, K. Biology and management of Phalaris minor in wheat under a rice/wheat system. Weed Res. 2003, 43, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Om, H.; Kumar, S.; Dhiman, S.D. Dormancy and viability of Phalaris minor seed in a rice-wheat cropping system. Weed Res. 2005, 45, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, V.; Singh, H.; Raghubanshi, A.S. Competitive interactions of wheat with Phalaris minor or Rumex dentatus: A replacement series study. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2013, 59, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahajan, G.; Brar, L.S. Integrated management of Phalaris minor in wheat: Rationale and approaches—A review. Agric. Rev. 2002, 23, 241–251. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, S.; Zhang, F.; Xu, G.; Li, T.; Wu, D.; Zhang, Y. Occurrence and infestation of invasive weed in crop field in Yunnan. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 25, 554–561. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, G.; Zhang, F.; Li, T.; Shen, S.; Zhang, Y. Influence of environmental factors on seed germination of Phalaris paradoxa and Phalaris minor. Acta Bot. Boreali-Occident. Sin. 2011, 31, 1458–1465. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, S.; Zhang, F.; Li, T.; Jin, G. Effect of crop species and mixed ratios on morphological plasticity and competitiveness of Phalaris minor Retz. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2013, 21, 1507–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, S.; Xu, G.; Li, D.; Jin, G.; Liu, S.; Clements, D.R.; Yang, Y.; Rao, J.; Chen, A.; Zhang, F.; et al. Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato), a promising replacement control crop for the invasive alien plant Ageratina adenophora (Asteraceae) in China. Manag. Biol. Invasions 2019, 10, 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obeso, J.R. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytol. 2002, 155, 321–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poorter, L. Growth responses of 15 rain-forest tree species to a light gradient: The relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Funct. Ecol. 1999, 13, 396–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wit, C.T. On competition. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderzoek. 1960, 66, 1–82. [Google Scholar]
- Field, C.; Mooney, H.A. The Photosynthesis–Nitrogen Relationship in Wild Plants on the Economy of Plant Form and Function; Givnish, T.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1986; pp. 25–55. [Google Scholar]
- Pearcy, R.W.; Ehleringer, J.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Rundel, P.W. Plant Physiological Ecology: Field Methods and Instrumentation; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, S.C.; Xu, G.F.; Clements, D.R.; Jin, G.M.; Chen, A.D.; Zhang, F.D.; Hisashi, K.N. Suppression of the invasive plant mile-a-minute (Mikania micrantha) by local crop sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) by means of higher growth rate and competition for soil nutrients. BMC Ecol. 2015, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, S.; Xu, G.; Li, D.; Jin, G.; Liu, S.; Clements, D.R.; Yang, Y.; Rao, J.; Chen, A.; Zhang, F.; et al. Potential use of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) to suppress three invasive plant species in agroecosystems (Ageratum conyzoides L., Bidens pilosa L., and Galinsoga parviflora Cav.). Agronomy 2019, 9, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Casas, R.R.; Kovach, K.; Dittmar, E.; Barua, D.; Barco, B.; Donohue, K. Seed after-ripening and dormancy determine adult life history independently of germination timing. New Phytol. 2012, 194, 868–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chachalis, D.; Reddy, K.N. Factors affecting Campsis radicans seed germination and seedling emergence. Weed Sci. 2000, 48, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grundy, A.C.; Phelps, K.; Reader, R.J.; Burston, S. Modelling the germination of Stellaria media using the concept of hydrothermal time. New Phytol. 2000, 148, 433–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, T.; Nadeem, M.A.; Tanveer, A.; Ali, H.H.; Safdar, M.; Zohaib, A.; Farooq, N. Exploring the herbicidal and mormetic potential of allelopathic crops against fenoxaprop-resistant Phalaris minor. Planta Daninha 2018, 36, e018176368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Darier, S.M.; El-Kenany, E.T.; Abdellatif, A.A.; Hady, E.N.F.A. Allelopathic prospective of Retama raetam L. against the noxious weed Phalaris minor Retz. growing in Triticum aestivum L. fields. Rend. Lincei–Sci. Fis. 2018, 29, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simberloff, D.; Martin, J.L.; Genovesi, P.; Maris, V.; Wardle, D.A.; Aronson, J.; Courchamp, F.; Galil, B.; García-Berthou, E.; Pascal, M.; et al. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baldwin, I.T.; Schmelz, E.A. Constraints on an induced defense: The role of leaf area. Oecologia 1994, 97, 424–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quero, J.L.; Villar, R.; Marañón, T.; Zamora, R. Interactions of drought and shade effects on seedlings of four Quercus species: Physiological and structural leaf responses. New Phytol. 2006, 170, 819–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambers, H.; Poorter, H. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: A search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv. Ecol. Res. 1992, 23, 187–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaba, S.; Fried, G.; Kazakou, E.; Chauvel, B.; Navas, M.L. Agroecological weed control using a functional approach: A review of cropping systems diversity. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vivek; Naresh, R.K.; Tomar, S.K.; Kumar, S.; Mahajan, N.C.; Shivani. Weed and water management strategies on the adaptive capacity of rice-wheat system to alleviate weed and moisture stresses in conservation agriculture: A review. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 1319–1334. [Google Scholar]
- Malik, R.K.; Kumar, V.; McDonald, A. Conservation agriculture-based resource-conserving practices and weed management in the rice-wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2018, 50, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Treatment | Germination Rate under Different Buried Period (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 d | 30 d | 60 d | 90 d | 120 d | 150 d | |
A | 2.7 ± 0.3e | 20.0 ± 1.2d | 60.3 ± 2.2c | 65.9 ± 2.4b | 71.1 ± 2.8a | 74.4 ± 2.4a |
B | 2.7 ± 0.3e | 11.9 ± 0.9d | 35.1 ± 1.4c | 73.3 ± 2.6b | 81.9 ± 2.2a | 75.3 ± 2.6a |
C | 2.7 ± 0.3a | 2.7 ± 0.3a | 4.3 ± 0.4a | 4.7 ± 0.2a | 5.1 ± 0.2a | 5.1 ± 0.3a |
Items | Accompanying Plant | Burial Depth (cm) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 12.0 | ||
Germination Rate (%) | Wheat | 96.0 ± 0.7a | 82.0 ± 2.4b | 67.3 ± 4.3c | 29.0 ± 3.5d | 4.5 ± 1.6e |
Faba bean | 95.3 ± 1.2a | 84.0 ± 2.0b | 67.0 ± 4.4c | 30.0 ± 2.8d | 5.3 ± 0.8e | |
Rapeseed | 94.3 ± 1.1a | 84.0 ± 0.9b | 60.3 ± 3.5c | 31.0 ± 2.4d | 5.5 ± 0.5e | |
Control | 96.3 ± 0.9a | 84.8 ± 0.5b | 69.5 ± 1.6c | 31.35 ± 1.2d | 5.8 ± 0.9e | |
Germination Index | Wheat | 19.1 ± 0.2a | 11.6 ± 0.5b | 6.9 ± 0.4c | 2.7 ± 0.3d | 0.3 ± 0.1e |
Faba bean | 18.6 ± 0.5a | 11.7 ± 0.4b | 6.8 ± 0.4c | 2.8 ± 0.3d | 0.4 ± 0.0e | |
Rapeseed | 15.5 ± 0.4a | 10.0 ± 0.1b | 5.8 ± 0.4c | 2.7 ± 0.3d | 0.3 ± 0.0e | |
Control | 19.8 ± 0.5a | 11.5 ± 0.4b | 7.3 ± 0.1c | 3.0 ± 0.1d | 0.4 ± 0.1e |
Variables | Ratios (Crops: P. minor) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2:1 | 1:1 | 1:2 | 0:3 | ||
Total biomass (g) | Wheat | 4.7 ± 0.1d | 5.7 ± 0.1c | 6.1 ± 0.1b | 6.5 ± 0.1a |
Faba bean | 6.0 ± 0.1b | 6.9 ± 0.2a | 6.8 ± 0.1a | 6.5 ± 0.1a | |
Rapeseed | 3.2 ± 0.1d | 4.0 ± 0.1c | 5.3 ± 0.1b | 6.5 ± 0.1a | |
Spike number | Wheat | 6.9 ± 0.2c | 7.4 ± 0.2c | 9.8 ± 0.3b | 12.3 ± 0.2a |
Faba bean | 7.7 ± 0.2d | 10.6 ± 0.3b | 9.9 ± 0.1c | 12.3 ± 0.2a | |
Rapeseed | 3.5 ± 0.1c | 4.0 ± 0.1c | 6.5 ± 0.3b | 12.3 ± 0.2a | |
Seed number | Wheat | 547.8 ± 31.0d | 805.8 ± 35.7c | 982.5 ± 29.7b | 1167.8 ± 44.4a |
Faba bean | 777.2 ± 25.7b | 1190.2 ± 15.1a | 1181.0 ± 67.5a | 1167.8 ± 44.4a | |
Rapeseed | 283.6 ± 17.4c | 307.4 ± 25.7c | 597.8 ± 58.2b | 1167.8 ± 44.4a | |
Spike biomass (g) | Wheat | 1.28 ± 0.02d | 1.83 ± 0.03c | 2.08 ± 0.04b | 2.57 ± 0.03a |
Faba bean | 2.07 ± 0.04c | 2.76 ± 0.06a | 2.73 ± 0.03a | 2.57 ± 0.03b | |
Rapeseed | 0.79 ± 0.02c | 1.01 ± 0.04c | 1.41 ± 0.04b | 2.57 ± 0.03a | |
Seed biomass (1000-grain weight/g) | Wheat | 1.44 ± 0.01b | 1.47 ± 0.02b | 1.49 ± 0.02a | 1.52 ± 0.02a |
Faba bean | 1.50 ± 0.01a | 1.53 ± 0.02a | 1.52 ± 0.03a | 1.52 ± 0.02a | |
Rapeseed | 1.36 ± 0.03b | 1.38 ± 0.04b | 1.41 ± 0.03b | 1.52 ± 0.02a | |
Reproductive allocation (g g−1) | Wheat | 0.27 ± 0.01c | 0.32 ± 0.01b | 0.34 ± 0.01b | 0.40 ±0.01a |
Faba bean | 0.34 ± 0.00b | 0.40 ± 0.01a | 0.40 ± 0.01a | 0.40 ± 0.01a | |
Rapeseed | 0.25 ± 0.01b | 0.25 ± 0.01b | 0.26 ± 0.01b | 0.40 ± 0.01a | |
Reproductive investment (g g−1) | Wheat | 0.17 ± 0.01d | 0.21 ± 0.01c | 0.24 ± 0.01b | 0.27 ± 0.01a |
Faba bean | 0.19 ± 0.01b | 0.27 ± 0.01a | 0.26 ± 0.02a | 0.27 ± 0.01a | |
Rapeseed | 0.12 ± 0.01c | 0.11 ± 0.01c | 0.16 ± 0.02b | 0.27 ± 0.01a | |
Reproductive index (g g−1) | Wheat | 0.62 ± 0.03a | 0.65 ± 0.02a | 0.71 ± 0.04a | 0.69 ± 0.03a |
Faba bean | 0.56 ± 0.03b | 0.66 ± 0.01a | 0.66 ± 0.04a | 0.69 ± 0.03a | |
Rapeseed | 0.49 ± 0.03b | 0.43 ± 0.04b | 0.59 ± 0.05a | 0.69 ± 0.03a |
Variables | Ratios (Crops: P. minor) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2:1 | 1:1 | 1:2 | 0:3 | ||
Leaf area (cm2) | Wheat | 7.0 ± 0.2c | 7.3 ± 0.3c | 8.4 ± 0.4b | 9.3 ± 0.2a |
Faba bean | 9.2 ± 0.1a | 9.4 ± 0.3a | 9.3 ± 0.3a | 9.3 ± 0.1a | |
Rapeseed | 4.9 ± 0.2d | 6.7 ± 0.2c | 7.7 ± 0.2b | 9.3 ± 0.1a | |
Specific leaf area (SLA) (cm2 g−1) | Wheat | 344.3 ± 8.5a | 332.1 ± 13.7a | 298.9 ± 7.6b | 291.1 ± 3.8b |
Faba bean | 315.5 ± 3.5a | 283.1 ± 4.9b | 294.2 ± 11.9b | 291.1 ± 3.8b | |
Rapeseed | 370.4 ± 12.1a | 344.8 ± 10.8b | 322.6 ± 9.1c | 291. ± 3.8d | |
Specific leaf weight (SLW) (mg1cm−2) | Wheat | 3.2 ± 0.1c | 3.4 ± 0.1bc | 3.7 ± 0.2b | 4.2 ± 0.1a |
Faba bean | 4.4 ± 0.1b | 5.2 ± 0.2a | 5.4 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.1b | |
Rapeseed | 2.7 ± 0.1c | 2.9 ± 0.1c | 3.1 ± 0.1b | 4.2 ± 0.1a | |
Net photosynthetic rate (Pn) (umol CO2 m−2 s−1) | Wheat | 15.1 ± 0.3c | 16.1 ± 0.3b | 16.5 ± 0.2b | 18.7 ± 0.4a |
Faba bean | 17.9 ± 0.2b | 18.1 ± 0.1b | 18.8 ± 0.2a | 18.7 ± 0.4ab | |
Rapeseed | 14.4 ± 0.3c | 14.8 ± 0.2c | 15.7 ± 0.2b | 18.7 ± 0.4a | |
Stomatal conductance, (Gs) (mol H2O m−2 s−1) | Wheat | 0.32 ± 0.01b | 0.34 ± 0.02ab | 0.35 ± 0.01ab | 0.37 ± 0.01a |
Faba bean | 0.34 ± 0.01a | 0.36 ± 0.01a | 0.37 ± 0.02a | 0.37 ± 0.01a | |
Rapeseed | 0.29 ± 0.01c | 0.29 ± 0.02c | 0.33 ± 0.01b | 0.37 ± 0.01a | |
Intercellular CO2 conductance (Ci) (umol mol−1) | Wheat | 294.3 ± 4.3a | 291.6 ± 2.8ab | 288.4 ± 2.7ab | 283.5 ± 2.2b |
Faba bean | 286.0 ± 2.4a | 284.2 ± 3.8a | 280.4 ± 39.4a | 283.5 ± 2.2a | |
Rapeseed | 289.3 ± 3.7a | 288.5 ± 3.7a | 292.3 ± 1.7a | 283.5 ± 2.2a | |
Transpiration rate (Tr) (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | Wheat | 4.0 ± 0.0c | 4.2 ± 0.1bc | 4.3 ± 0.0b | 4.9 ± 0.1a |
Faba bean | 4.7 ± 0.1b | 4.9 ± 0.1ab | 5.0 ± 0.1a | 4.9 ± 0.1ab | |
Rapeseed | 3.9 ± 0.1c | 3.8 ± 0.1c | 4.2 ± 0.1b | 4.9 ± 0.1a | |
Water use efficiency (WUE) (umol CO2 mmol H2O −1) | Wheat | 3.8 ± 0.1a | 3.9 ± 0.1a | 3.9 ± 0.1a | 3.8 ± 0.1a |
Faba bean | 3.8 ± 0.1a | 3.74 ± 0.1a | 3.7 ± 0.1a | 3.8 ± 0.1a | |
Rapeseed | 3.7 ± 0.1a | 3.87 ± 0.1a | 3.7 ± 0.1a | 3.8 ± 0.1a |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, G.; Shen, S.; Zhang, Y.; Clements, D.R.; Yang, S.; Li, J.; Dong, L.; Zhang, F.; Jin, G.; Gao, Y. Designing Cropping Systems to Improve the Management of the Invasive Weed Phalaris minor Retz. Agronomy 2019, 9, 809. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9120809
Xu G, Shen S, Zhang Y, Clements DR, Yang S, Li J, Dong L, Zhang F, Jin G, Gao Y. Designing Cropping Systems to Improve the Management of the Invasive Weed Phalaris minor Retz. Agronomy. 2019; 9(12):809. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9120809
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Gaofeng, Shicai Shen, Yun Zhang, David Roy Clements, Shaosong Yang, Jun Li, Liyao Dong, Fudou Zhang, Guimei Jin, and Yuan Gao. 2019. "Designing Cropping Systems to Improve the Management of the Invasive Weed Phalaris minor Retz." Agronomy 9, no. 12: 809. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9120809