Possibilities of Using Seed Meals in Control of Herbicide-Susceptible and -Resistant Biotypes of Rye Brome (Bromus secalinus L.) in Winter Wheat

Rye brome is a rare and nuisance weed in winter wheat canopies. In recent years, farmers have complained about the inadequate chemical control of this species. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of seed meals obtained from allelopathic crops as an environmentally-friendly alternative for the control of herbicide-susceptible (S) and -resistant (R) rye brome biotypes in winter wheat. The pot experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at the Swojczyce Research and Training Station in Wrocław (Poland) to determine the impact of seed meals from: Fagopyrum esculentum, Sinapis alba, Phacelia tanacetifolia, Lupinus luteus, Raphanus sativus var. oleiformis and Ornithopus sativus, at 1 and 3% doses. Wheat emergence (>90%) and early growth were not affected by the presence in the soil of seed meals (only at 1% concentration) from P. tanacetifolia and R. sativus. The efficacy of these meals (reduction of aboveground biomass) at rye brome control was the same as the herbicide or higher. Seed meals from P. tanacetifolia reduced the emergence of the S and R biotypes by approximately 70 percentage points (p.p.) and 30 p.p., respectively, and limited the initial growth of both biotypes. Addition to soil meals from F. esculentum and R. sativus generally reduced only initial weed growth.

One of the most common and harmful weed species among the Bromus genus is rye brome. The infestation of numerous crops with B. secalinus can be observed on almost all continents. Rye brome is widespread in European countries such as the United Kingdom [1,7], France [2], Germany [8], Romania [9] and Poland [3,[10][11][12][13][14][15]. It is a significant problem in North America [6], especially in the USA and Canada in winter wheat production areas of the Great Plains [16,17]. In the last decade, the occurrence of rye brome has been confirmed in Asia-including in Iran [18] and Taiwan [5].
Rye brome is an annual, speirochoric plant [12], which may grow in a spring or winter form; however, winter forms are more common [15]. In Poland, in the past, B. secalinus The aim of this research was (1) to evaluate the effect of seed meals on the emergence and initial development of winter wheat and herbicide-susceptible or -resistant biotypes of rye brome; (2) to assess the possibility of using seed meals to reduce weed infestation with herbicide-susceptible or -resistant biotypes of rye brome in winter wheat; (3) to compare the effectiveness of rye brome control by seed meals with herbicide spraying.
The research hypothesis assumes that the presence of seed meals in the soil will limit the emergence and initial development of herbicide-susceptible and -resistant biotypes of rye brome, and will not affect the initial development of wheat.

Influence of Seed Meals on Winter Wheat
The origin and dose of the seed meal already had a clearly differentiating effect on the development of winter wheat at the emergence stage (BBCH 09) (Figure 1). number of rye brome biotypes resistant to herbicides and the implementation o Green Deal policy, the use of seed meals to control B. secalinus could be an int alternative.
The aim of this research was (1) to evaluate the effect of seed meals on the em and initial development of winter wheat and herbicide-susceptible or -resistant b of rye brome; (2) to assess the possibility of using seed meals to reduce weed inf with herbicide-susceptible or -resistant biotypes of rye brome in winter wheat; (3) pare the effectiveness of rye brome control by seed meals with herbicide spraying The research hypothesis assumes that the presence of seed meals in the soil w the emergence and initial development of herbicide-susceptible and -resistant bio rye brome, and will not affect the initial development of wheat.

Influence of Seed Meals on Winter Wheat
The origin and dose of the seed meal already had a clearly differentiating e the development of winter wheat at the emergence stage (BBCH 09) ( Figure 1). There was differentiation not only in the dynamics of emergence, but also in t ber of wheat seedlings per pot. The wheat started to emerge earliest (day 3 after when treated with meal PT1; and latest (day 7 after sowing) when treated with m The fastest rate of emergence (4 days) was found in wheat growing on the soil w LL1. In pots where a higher concentration of yellow lupine meal (LL3) was ap lengthening in the emergence of cereal shoots and a reduction in their number w served. The fastest rate of emergence (8 days) was observed for wheat growing in with the addition of FE3, SA3 and OS3 meal. The highest percentage of wheat s was found in the pots without meal, i.e., in the control treatment (C)-96%. A sim centage of emerging plants (>90%) was recorded for wheat mixed with FE1, PT1 meals. In the case of meals of a lower concentration, the lowest percentage of gra lings (39%) was observed in the treatment with meal SA1. An increase in the conce of the SA meal in the soil to 3% also resulted in the lowest percentage of seedling the meals tested (26%).
The addition of seed meals to the soil also led to a modification in the above biomass per one plant of winter wheat ( Figure 2). There was differentiation not only in the dynamics of emergence, but also in the number of wheat seedlings per pot. The wheat started to emerge earliest (day 3 after sowing) when treated with meal PT1; and latest (day 7 after sowing) when treated with meal LL3. The fastest rate of emergence (4 days) was found in wheat growing on the soil with meal LL1. In pots where a higher concentration of yellow lupine meal (LL3) was applied, a lengthening in the emergence of cereal shoots and a reduction in their number were observed. The fastest rate of emergence (8 days) was observed for wheat growing in the soil with the addition of FE3, SA3 and OS3 meal. The highest percentage of wheat seedlings was found in the pots without meal, i.e., in the control treatment (C)-96%. A similar percentage of emerging plants (>90%) was recorded for wheat mixed with FE1, PT1 and RS1 meals. In the case of meals of a lower concentration, the lowest percentage of grain seedlings (39%) was observed in the treatment with meal SA1. An increase in the concentration of the SA meal in the soil to 3% also resulted in the lowest percentage of seedlings among the meals tested (26%).
The addition of seed meals to the soil also led to a modification in the aboveground biomass per one plant of winter wheat ( Figure 2).  After the application of seed meals at a concentration of 1% reduction in the mass of aboveground parts of wheat was found g) and HC (0.887 g) treatments. Only the SA1 meal significantl wheat biomass, by multiples of 5.1 and 4.6 respectively, compa the OS1 meal resulted in a significant limitation of the abovegro 34.7%, only in comparison to C. The addition to the soil of meals inhibited growth of fresh mass of aboveground parts of wheat-HC. The exception was wheat growing on the substrate soil with In this case, the aboveground biomass of wheat was on the sam treatments. Moreover, the application of the OS3 meal resul aboveground biomass of wheat by 38.9%, only in comparison to The type of meal and its concentration in the soil did not r the belowground biomass per one plant of wheat compared to biomass was found to be significantly lower only after applica pared to FE1 and PT1-by multiples of 7.4 and 8.5, respectively After the application of seed meals at a concentration of 1%, overall a non-significant reduction in the mass of aboveground parts of wheat was found, compared to the C (0.989 g) and HC (0.887 g) treatments. Only the SA1 meal significantly inhibited the growth of wheat biomass, by multiples of 5.1 and 4.6 respectively, compared to C and HC. In turn, the OS1 meal resulted in a significant limitation of the aboveground biomass of wheat by 34.7%, only in comparison to C. The addition to the soil of meals at a higher concentration inhibited growth of fresh mass of aboveground parts of wheat-compared both to C and HC. The exception was wheat growing on the substrate soil with the addition of RS3 meal. In this case, the aboveground biomass of wheat was on the same level as in the C and HC treatments. Moreover, the application of the OS3 meal resulted in a limitation in the aboveground biomass of wheat by 38.9%, only in comparison to C.
The type of meal and its concentration in the soil did not result in any differences in the belowground biomass per one plant of wheat compared to C and HC ( Figure 3). Root biomass was found to be significantly lower only after application of the LL3 meal compared to FE1 and PT1-by multiples of 7.4 and 8.5, respectively.
The addition to the soil of seed meals from various crop species in differing concentrations had an impact on the average length of aboveground parts of the winter wheat plants ( Figure 4). treatments. Moreover, the application of the OS3 meal resulted in a limitation in the aboveground biomass of wheat by 38.9%, only in comparison to C.
The type of meal and its concentration in the soil did not result in any differences in the belowground biomass per one plant of wheat compared to C and HC ( Figure 3). Roo biomass was found to be significantly lower only after application of the LL3 meal compared to FE1 and PT1-by multiples of 7.4 and 8.5, respectively.  The addition to the soil of seed meals from various crop species in differing concen trations had an impact on the average length of aboveground parts of the winter whea plants ( Figure 4). In the majority of cases, the addition of meals led to a significant limitation of up to several centimeters in the length of the aboveground parts of the wheat. After the appli cation of meals at a lower concentration (1%), less of an inhibitory impact on the tested parameter was found overall. On average, compared to treatment C, the inhibition o growth was 41%. Only the PT1 meal enabled the length of the aboveground parts of whea to be maintained at the same level as in the C and HC treatments, while RS1 enabled it to be maintained at the level of C. It is worth emphasizing that in treatments with the sam meals (PT1 and RS1), an emergence of wheat at the level of >90% (cf. Figure 1) was ob served, as well as a non-significant limitation of the fresh mass of aboveground parts o the tested crop (cf. Figure 2). The shortest (7.0 cm) parts were found in wheat growing on In the majority of cases, the addition of meals led to a significant limitation of up to several centimeters in the length of the aboveground parts of the wheat. After the application of meals at a lower concentration (1%), less of an inhibitory impact on the tested parameter was found overall. On average, compared to treatment C, the inhibition of growth was 41%. Only the PT1 meal enabled the length of the aboveground parts of wheat to be maintained at the same level as in the C and HC treatments, while RS1 enabled it to be maintained at the level of C. It is worth emphasizing that in treatments with the same meals (PT1 and RS1), an emergence of wheat at the level of >90% (cf. Figure 1) was observed, as well as a non-significant limitation of the fresh mass of aboveground parts of the tested crop (cf. Figure 2). The shortest (7.0 cm) parts were found in wheat growing on the soil mixed with meal SA1. An increase in the concentration of the meals applied led to a significant limitation in the length of wheat overall. SA3 was found to have the most inhibitory effect on the increase in the length of aboveground parts of wheat (length 2.1 cm). After the application of RS and OS meals, the assessed parameter remained at the same level at both concentrations.
Meals from tested species of donor plants at a concentration of 1% and the application of herbicide (HC) significantly limited (by 11 cm 2 on average) development in the aboveground area of wheat compared to treatment C (21.2 cm 2 ) ( Figure 5). In the case of meals FE1, LL1 and RS1, no decrease in the aboveground area of wheat was found compared to the treatment HC. Interestingly, these same meals (FE1, LL1, RS1) also did not cause any significant decrease in the mass of aboveground parts (cf. Figure 2) or in the mass of belowground parts (cf. Figure 3) of the wheat tested, compared both to HC and to C. The reduction in emergence was 13 percentage points (p.p.) at most for LL1 (cf. Figure 1). After application at a higher concentration, a further decrease in the area of the aboveground parts of the wheat (by 4 cm 2 on average) was found overall, compared to the treatments C and HC. Only the addition to the soil of the RS3 meal did not limit the aboveground area of wheat, compared to HC. The application to the soil of this meal also did not result in a reduction in the aboveground biomass of wheat (cf. Figure 3). This may be evidence of the neutral impact of this meal on the tested crop variety. application at a higher concentration, a further decrease in the area of the aboveground parts of the wheat (by 4 cm 2 on average) was found overall, compared to the treatments C and HC. Only the addition to the soil of the RS3 meal did not limit the aboveground area of wheat, compared to HC. The application to the soil of this meal also did not result in a reduction in the aboveground biomass of wheat (cf. Figure 3). This may be evidence of the neutral impact of this meal on the tested crop variety.

Effectiveness of Seed Meals in Reduction of Rye Brome Growth
The type and dose of meal added to the soil led to differences in the number of seedlings of rye brome of both the susceptible (Figure 6a) and the resistant (Figure 6b) biotype. The emergence of seedlings of the herbicide-susceptible biotype was inhibited most weakly on the soil with the addition of FE1 and RS1 and RS3 meals. The percentages of seedling emergence were 85%, 87% and 76% respectively. Independently of the biotype, the lowest percentage of seedling emergence was recorded after the application of the SA meal (2% or lack of seedling emergence). It should, however, be noted that these meals also significantly limited the development of the wheat (cf. Figures 1-5). For this reason, the use of SA meals in the cultivation of wheat to limit the development of rye brome may be of limited significance.
Moreover, in the resistant biotype, a weaker reaction of emerging seedlings to the applied meals was observed in comparison to the susceptible biotype. The FE3 meal was

Effectiveness of Seed Meals in Reduction of Rye Brome Growth
The type and dose of meal added to the soil led to differences in the number of seedlings of rye brome of both the susceptible (Figure 6a) and the resistant (Figure 6b) biotype. The emergence of seedlings of the herbicide-susceptible biotype was inhibited most weakly on the soil with the addition of FE1 and RS1 and RS3 meals. The percentages of seedling emergence were 85%, 87% and 76% respectively. Independently of the biotype, the lowest percentage of seedling emergence was recorded after the application of the SA meal (2% or lack of seedling emergence). It should, however, be noted that these meals also significantly limited the development of the wheat (cf. Figures 1-5). For this reason, the  In each case, the assessed parameter was found to have decreased in length after addition of the meal. The application of meals FE1, LL1 and RS1 allowed the weed plants to be shortened to the same level as with the spraying of herbicide (HC), i.e., by 26% on average, compared to C. This effect increased after the addition of the meals OS1, PT1 and SA1. It is worth underlining that the addition of the meals PT1 and RS1 did not have an impact on the length of the aboveground parts of the wheat (cf. Figure 4). For the FE and LL meals only, an increase in concentration from 1% to 3% caused a significant increase in the inhibition of the development of the length of the aboveground parts of the susceptible biotype of rye brome-by 70% and 96%, respectively.
There were no differences in the length of aboveground parts of the resistant biotype of rye brome as a result of the application of herbicide and the majority of meals at a concentration of 1% compared to C (17.4 cm) (Figure 7b). The exception was the meal SA1. It limited the tested parameter by 95% compared to C. Similarly, as in the case of the susceptible biotype of rye brome, it was only after an increase in the concentration of FE and LL meals from 1% to 3% that there was found to be a further decrease in the length of the aboveground parts of the weed; this decrease was by 52% and 31%, respectively. Moreover, in the resistant biotype, a weaker reaction of emerging seedlings to the applied meals was observed in comparison to the susceptible biotype. The FE3 meal was fairly effective at limiting emergence (along with the SA meal). After the application of this meal, the percentage of seedling emergence for the resistant biotype of rye brome was 30%. With an increase in the concentration of the meals, an increase in the limitation of seedling emergence was observed, although the difference between the concentrations was not as big as in the case of the herbicide-susceptible biotype.
Application of herbicide resulted in a limitation in the length of aboveground parts of the herbicide-susceptible biotype of rye brome by 23% compared to C (15.9 cm) (Figure 7a).  In each case, the assessed parameter was found to have decreased in length after addition of the meal. The application of meals FE1, LL1 and RS1 allowed the weed plants to be shortened to the same level as with the spraying of herbicide (HC), i.e., by 26% on average, compared to C. This effect increased after the addition of the meals OS1, PT1 and SA1. It is worth underlining that the addition of the meals PT1 and RS1 did not have an impact on the length of the aboveground parts of the wheat (cf. Figure 4). For the FE and LL meals only, an increase in concentration from 1% to 3% caused a significant increase in the inhibition of the development of the length of the aboveground parts of the susceptible biotype of rye brome-by 70% and 96%, respectively.
There were no differences in the length of aboveground parts of the resistant biotype of rye brome as a result of the application of herbicide and the majority of meals at a concentration of 1% compared to C (17.4 cm) (Figure 7b). The exception was the meal SA1. It In each case, the assessed parameter was found to have decreased in length after addition of the meal. The application of meals FE1, LL1 and RS1 allowed the weed plants to be shortened to the same level as with the spraying of herbicide (HC), i.e., by 26% on average, compared to C. This effect increased after the addition of the meals OS1, PT1 and SA1. It is worth underlining that the addition of the meals PT1 and RS1 did not have an impact on the length of the aboveground parts of the wheat (cf. Figure 4). For the FE and LL meals only, an increase in concentration from 1% to 3% caused a significant increase in There were no differences in the length of aboveground parts of the resistant biotype of rye brome as a result of the application of herbicide and the majority of meals at a concentration of 1% compared to C (17.4 cm) (Figure 7b). The exception was the meal SA1. It limited the tested parameter by 95% compared to C. Similarly, as in the case of the susceptible biotype of rye brome, it was only after an increase in the concentration of FE and LL meals from 1% to 3% that there was found to be a further decrease in the length of the aboveground parts of the weed; this decrease was by 52% and 31%, respectively.
The efficacy of the tested meals in the reduction of the aboveground biomass of the herbicide-susceptible biotype of rye brome was on the same level as the efficacy with the herbicide treatment (HC) (Figure 8a). On average, it was 80%. The application of the meals LL3, OS3, SA1 and SA3 resulted in a limitation on the biomass of the aboveground parts of over 95%. There was found to be a significant increase, by 29 p.p., in efficacy together with an increase in the concentration of meal only for the OS meal. The efficacy of the tested meals in the reduction of the aboveground biomass of the herbicide-susceptible biotype of rye brome was on the same level as the efficacy with the herbicide treatment (HC) (Figure 8a). On average, it was 80%. The application of the meals LL3, OS3, SA1 and SA3 resulted in a limitation on the biomass of the aboveground parts of over 95%. There was found to be a significant increase, by 29 p.p., in efficacy together with an increase in the concentration of meal only for the OS meal.
There were differences in the effectiveness of limitation of the biomass of aboveground parts of the herbicide-resistant biotype of rye brome after the application of seed meals (Figure 8b). In the weeds growing on the soil with the addition of the FE1, PT1, RS1 and OS1 meals, the efficacy was found to be on the same level as with the chemical control, i.e., approximately 35%. Moreover, the application of the aforementioned meals did not cause any significant decrease in the biomass of the aboveground parts of the wheat in relation to HC (cf. Figure 2). The SA1 meal caused an increase in efficacy by 38 p.p. with reference to HC. In turn, the LL1 meal caused an increase in the biomass of aboveground parts of the weed by 8 p.p. in relation to C. Together with an increase the concentration of the LL meal to 3%, a further decrease in the efficacy of reduction of aboveground biomass by 47 p.p. was observed. The application to the soil of selected meals-namely SA and PT at a concentration of 1% caused a significant increase in efficacy in reduction of belowground biomass of the susceptible biotype of rye brome in relation to the application of herbicide (HC; 29.5%) (Figure 9a). There were differences in the effectiveness of limitation of the biomass of aboveground parts of the herbicide-resistant biotype of rye brome after the application of seed meals (Figure 8b). In the weeds growing on the soil with the addition of the FE1, PT1, RS1 and OS1 meals, the efficacy was found to be on the same level as with the chemical control, i.e., approximately 35%. Moreover, the application of the aforementioned meals did not cause any significant decrease in the biomass of the aboveground parts of the wheat in relation to HC (cf. Figure 2). The SA1 meal caused an increase in efficacy by 38 p.p. with reference to HC. In turn, the LL1 meal caused an increase in the biomass of aboveground parts of the weed by 8 p.p. in relation to C. Together with an increase the concentration of the LL meal to 3%, a further decrease in the efficacy of reduction of aboveground biomass by 47 p.p. was observed.
The application to the soil of selected meals-namely SA and PT at a concentration of 1% caused a significant increase in efficacy in reduction of belowground biomass of the susceptible biotype of rye brome in relation to the application of herbicide (HC; 29.5%) (Figure 9a).
The application to the soil of selected meals-namely SA and PT at a concentration of 1% caused a significant increase in efficacy in reduction of belowground biomass of the susceptible biotype of rye brome in relation to the application of herbicide (HC; 29.5%) (Figure 9a). The increase in the efficacy of the aforementioned meals compared to the HC treatment amounted to 70 and 47 p.p. respectively. A significant increase in the efficacy of the meal (by 42 p.p.) was found, together with an increase in its concentration in the soil for the OS meal only. Moreover, the meals FE3, SA3, LL3 and OS3 significantly limited the development of the belowground biomass of the weed with reference to HC. The increase in the efficacy of the reduction in the growth in mass amounted to: 48, 71, 70 and 68 p.p. respectively.
The application of meals from tested donor plants had a varying impact on the development of biomass of belowground parts of the herbicide-resistant biotype of rye brome (Figure 9b). After the application of nearly all the meals at a concentration of 1% (FE, LL, RS, OS), a reduction in the fresh mass of the aboveground parts of a level comparable to that seen after spraying with herbicide (HC; 12%) was observed. In the case of the SA1 meal, the efficacy was found to be over three times higher (55%) than after the application of herbicide. It should be emphasized that the SA1 meal also resulted in a significant limitation in the growth of the mass of the aboveground parts of the herbicide-susceptible biotype of rye brome compared to HC (cf. Figure 9a). In the case of the application of the SA meal at a higher concentration (3%), a significant increase, in relation to HC, was observed in the efficacy of the reduction of belowground biomass (by 85 p.p.). A significant increase in the efficacy of the meal was found, together with an increase in its concentration in the soil, only for the LL meal. It is worth underlining that, in the case of wheat (cf. Figure 3), the application of meals did not lead to any differences in its belowground biomass.

Discussion
On cereal fields, it is especially difficult to control monocotyledonous weed species, including those from the Bromus genus, which are also highly competitive with crop plants [35,36]. The chemical control of brome grasses has been the focus of much research worldwide. However, an effective and dependable solution is still to be found [6,16,17,37]. A significant problem in the management of Bromus spp. is the occurrence and evolution of herbicide resistance [7,38,39], as a consequence of the limited rotation of herbicides, as well as the application of simplifications to crop rotations and monocultures [40][41][42]. Additionally, herbicides pose toxicological and ecological threats, especially toward nontarget organisms [43].
There are numerous works in the international body of research concerning nonchemical methods of control of brome-grasses [44][45][46]. Their authors show that rhizobacteria can be used in the biocontrol of Bromus spp., including-B. secalinus [47]-one of the most widespread and damaging weeds of the Bromus genus on a global scale [1,2,[6][7][8]15]. Some authors point out that using crop rotation reduces the density of rye brome panicles per unit area, but does not eliminate it entirely [17]. Stone at al. [17], show that the rotation out of winter wheat for one growing season in comparison to continuous cropping winter wheat reduced up to 87% rye brome panicles. In non-chemical weed control, biological methods play a significant role alongside cultural methods, whereas suppressing weeds by using the allelopathic phenomenon is considered to be one of the most innovative methods of weed control [48,49]. Different agronomic methods enable the practical utilization of allelopathic plants in the form of seed meals [32][33][34]50].
Based on our own experiments, meal from white mustard (Sinapis alba; SA) proved to be the most effective at inhibiting initial growth of herbicide-susceptible and herbicideresistant biotypes of rye brome. After its application, the percentage of germinating seeds of B. secalinus was 3.7% at most, and the average length of the aboveground parts of plants that emerged was less than 1 cm. Our results are consistent with the work of many authors [32,34,51], who also underline the strong inhibitory action of meal from S. alba in relation to weeds. These authors show that seed meals from white mustard reduced the growing seedlings of the following weeds: monocotyledonous (Poa annua L., Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.), Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.), dicotyledonous (Stellaria media L., Oxalis corniculata, Physalis angulata L., Amaranthus spinosus L., Cyperus esculentus L.), as well as liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha L.). In our research, the reduction in the aboveground biomass of the herbicide-susceptible biotype after application of the SA meal was approximately 98-100% and, in the case of the herbicide-resistant biotype, it was 73-100% (for concentrations of 1 and 3%, respectively). Dastgheib et al. [6] show that a mixture of terbutryn + terbuthylazine applied at the tillering stage of wheat results in a similar level of efficacy, with more than a 90% reduction in ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus Roth) biomass. In our study, the efficacy of herbicide with propoxycarbazone-sodium in aboveground biomass reduction was 35-82% for the resistant and susceptible biotype of rye brome, respectively. Unfortunately, in our research, SA meal also had an inhibiting effect on the initial development of winter wheat-the crop in which B. secalinus occurs most frequently [10,13,17,37]. In relation to this, its use as a biological herbicide in the cultivation of winter wheat is impossible. Our finding is supported by [32][33][34], who also confirm the inhibitory action of S. alba seed meal on the growth of various species of crops: maize (plant number and biomass), cucurbits (severely reduced yield) and lettuce (emergence).
This study revealed that meal from lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia; PT) and from fodder radish (Raphanus sativus var. oleiformis; RS) at a concentration of 1% limited the development of the aboveground biomass of the herbicide-susceptible biotype of rye brome in the same way as spraying with herbicide. Importantly, in our research, meals from PT1 and RS1 did not result in any significant limitation of germination and development in the mass of aboveground parts of winter wheat compared to the control (C) and the herbicide control (HC). Partly similar results were obtained by Pużyńska et al. [32]. The authors assessed the impact of seed meal from wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) on maize (Zea mays L.) and two weed species-barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv.) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). As in our experiment, meal from wild radish was not found to have any significant impact on the dry mass of maize shoots. Pużyńska at al. [32] show that meal from wild radish also did not impact on the dry mass of aboveground parts of barnyard grass and redroot pigweed. Many authors draw attention to the allelopathic properties of lacy phacelia and the possibility of its use as a natural product in non-chemical weed management (weeds monocotyledonous: Sorghum halepense (L.) Per., E. crus-galli, weeds dicotyledonous: Portulaca oleracea L., Chenopodium album L., Solanum nigrum L., A. retroflexus, Convolvulus arvensis L., Tribulus terrestris L., Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop.) [52][53][54][55][56]. The situation is similar with buckwheat. Most authors focus, however, on the potential for the limitation of the development of weeds by root secretions from this species [57][58][59][60]. Our own studies found the emergence of both biotypes of rye grass to be strongly limited after the addition of a higher dose of meal into the soil. The application of this dose of seed meal from buckwheat also resulted in a significant limitation in the length of the aboveground parts of both the weed and the wheat.
In studies by Mioduszewska et al. [61], a limitation on the initial development of wheat after the application of extract from the aboveground parts of buckwheat was also found.

Plant Materials
In the experiment, two acceptor species were tested. The first was the crop, common wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. 'Agil') and the second was the weed, rye brome (B. secalinus). Winter wheat seeds were certified and marked as a degree C/1 (certified seed from the first multiplication, obtained after one multiplication of the basic seed). The herbicidesusceptible (S) and -resistant (R) biotypes of rye brome were harvested from winter wheat fields in July 2020. The characteristics of both the S and R biotypes of rye brome are presented in Table 1. The resistant biotype of weed was characterized by a low resistance index (2 ≤ R ≤ 4) to propoxycarbazone-sodium.

Seed Meals and Their Preparation
Qualified seeds of selected crop species (Table 2) were milled the day before the pot experiment was started. All the collected commercial seeds were grounded to meals in a Fritsch Pulverisette 11 laboratory mill (Idar-Oberstein, Germany).

Herbicide Characteristics
The active ingredient of the herbicide used in the experiment is propoxycarbazonesodium (70%). According to the HRAC classification, it is classified as belonging to Herbicide MoA Group 2. The active ingredient presents a systemic type of action. Recommended application per leaves. It is a selective herbicide and has the formulation of water-soluble granules (SG).

Soil Characteristics
A soil that was used in the experiment was formed from light loamy sand underlaid with poorly loamy sand and was classified as IVb quality class (in Poland, equivalent to good rye complex). The topsoil (0-30 cm) was characterized by the following parameters: pH KCl 5.82; P 86.4; K 27.5; Mg 131.0 (mg·kg −1 of soil) and C org 0.41%. The soil was taken after harvesting the forecrop of organic forage pea cv. 'Roch'.

Set-up and Management of Pot Experiments
Two series of pot experiments were carried out during 2020 and 2021. Series I began in November and series II started in March, in a greenhouse at Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Science's Research and Training Station in Swojczyce (Wrocław, Poland). In both, the lighting and thermal conditions were regulated. The first experimental factor was the type of seed meal; the second was the dose of seed meal. Each acceptor (winter wheat and herbicide-susceptible and -resistant biotypes of rye brome) was analyzed individually.
Before starting the experiment, the soil was sieved over 1 cm mesh screens to rid the soil of post-harvest residue. The experiment was set up as a totally randomized design with three pots as replications. Production pots 0.5 L in volume were filled up with a mixture of 500 g of soil and one of the seed meals in an amount of 1 or 3% (w/w), separately. The control (C) and herbicide control (HC) pots did not contain any addition of meals. Nine grains each of either winter wheat or either of the biotypes of rye brome (S or R) were sown into soil-filled pots. Fourteen days after sowing, the number of plants per pot was equalized to five if the number of seedlings allowed. The HC treatment was sprayed on the two leaves of unfolded-stage (BBCH 12) rye brome in the spray chamber (APORO Sp. z o.o., Poznań, Poland). The dose of propoxycarbazone-sodium was 56 g ha −1 ·200 L of water. Experiments were harvested when the plants of winter wheat in the C treatment were at the four leaves unfolded stage (BBCH 14).

Winter Wheat
Wheat emergence was counted daily for 14 days after sowing. At the end of each series, the plants were pulled out and counted. The fresh weight of aboveground and belowground parts was determined (roots were washed and dried on a paper towel) using a WTC 2000 scale from RADWAG (Cracow, Poland). The length of the aboveground parts was measured. The next day, the area of the aboveground parts of wheat was measured with using a CI-202 LASER LEAF AREA METER from CID Bio-Science (Camas, WA, USA).

Rye Brome
During the harvest, the plants were pulled out and counted. The fresh weight of above and belowground parts (roots were washed and dried on a paper towel) was determined using a WTC 2000 scale from RADWAG (Cracow, Poland). On this basis, the efficacy of biomass reduction of the tested treatments in relation to the control treatment (C) was calculated. A minus value of the index indicates an increase in the mass of rye brome with the applied seed meals. The length of aboveground parts of the weeds were also measured.

Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out with using the two-way variance analysis (type of seed meal and dose of seed meal), using Statistica 13.3 software (TIBCO Software Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). In order to check the normality of the distribution, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed. The homogeneity of variance was checked using the Levene test. In order to determine and verify the relationships, Tukey's post-hoc test was performed with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.

Conclusions
The study found that selected seed meals can constitute an alternative to herbicide management strategies for the control of herbicide-susceptible and -resistant (to propoxycarbazone-sodium) biotypes of rye brome in winter wheat. Wheat emergence and initial growth were not affected by the presence of seed meals from common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum), lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia) and fodder radish (Raphanus sativus var. oleiformis) at 1% concentrations in the soil. The efficacy of these seed meals at the control of rye brome was at the same level as the herbicide or higher. An increase in the concentration of seed meals is not recommended due to the reduction in wheat emergence. Seed meals obtained from lacy phacelia reduced the emergence and initial growth of both biotypes of weeds, but seed meals from common buckwheat and fodder radish limited only the initial weed growth. Furthermore, despite the high efficacy of seed meals from white mustard at reducing emergence of rye brome, they are not recommended for the control of herbicide-susceptible and resistant biotypes of rye brome due to their inhibition of wheat growth. Future experiments should focus on a more comprehensive examination of seed meals in weed management by taking other herbicides, another level of herbicide resistance and other species of crops or weeds.