J. SALONENAgricultural Research Centreof Finland, InstituteofPlantProtection, SF-31600 Jokioinen,Finland
Received 11October 1991
Revised version accepted6April 1992
Summary:Résumé:Zusammenfassung
Reduction of the dose ofMCPA/mecopropand
MCPA/fluroxypyr mixturestohalforone-third of the recommended rates still provided good weed control efficacy in spring wheat(Triticum
aestivum L.) and particularly in spring barley {Hordeum vulgäre L). The average yield of
treated plots was 8% higher in wheat and 1%
higherinbarley comparedwithuntreated plots.
However, yield reductions were observed in 32% of wheatplots and in 43% of barley plots treated with herbicides. The yield responses werepoorly correlated with the weed density of mixed weed floraat the time of spraying. No reliable threshold density for chemical weed controlwasfound.
Réponsesaurendement de céréales deprintemps, ådes doses d’herbicides réduites
La réduction de la dose de MCPA/mecopropet MCPA/fluroxypyr å la moitiéou au tiers des taux recommandés aencore assure une bonne efficacité herbicide chez le blé de printemps (Triticum aestivum L.) et spécialement chez I’orge de printemps (Hordeum vulgäre L.). Le rendementmoyendes parcelles traitées était de 8% plus élevé chez le bléetde 1%élevé chez I’orge que dans les parcelles non traitées.
Cependant, des reductions de rendement ont été observées dans 32% des parcelles de blé et dans 43% des parcelles d’orge traitées aux herbicides. Les réponses du rendement étaient
faiblement liées ä la densité en adventices
d’une flore mixte au moment du traitement.
Aucune densité seuil-sérieuse pour le desher-bagen’a été trouvée.
Ertragsbildung von Sommergetreide bei
redu-ziertem
Aufwand
vonHerbizidenEine Reduzierung des Aufwands von MCPA-Mecoprop- und MCPA-Fluroxypyr-Mischun-gen auf die Hälfte oder ein Drittel des
empfohlenen Aufwands ergab in Sommerwei-zen (Triticum aestivum L.) und besonders in Sommergerste (Hordeum vulgäre L.) noch eine
gute Unkrautbekämpfung. Im Mittel war der Ertrag der behandelten Parzellen beim Weizen
um8%und bei derGersteum 1%höher als in den unbehandelten, aber in 32 % der Herbizidparzellen mitWeizen und in43%der mit Gerste wurdenErtragsminderungen beob-achtet. Die Ertragsbildung stand kaum in Beziehung zur Unkrautdichte zur Zeit der Behandlung. Es wurde keine verläßliche Schadensschwelle gefunden.
Introduction
Modern herbicidesprovide efficient control of weedsincerealsatareasonable pricecompared withother economicinputsofcereal cultivation.
Herbicidesareprimarily used toavoidyieldloss
by preventing weeds from interfering with cultivation, harvesting and marketing of grain (Elliott, 1978, 1980).However,environmental, economic and even political factors compel farmers to minimize their dependence on the usezf herbicides.
Benefitsfromchemical weed control decrease with increasing yield level (Beer, 1979;
Gummesson, 1987).Theincreasingcrop yields (Mukula&Rantanen, 1987)and thedecreasing infestationofweeds (Erviö&Salonen, 1987)in Finlandgaveanimpetus tothe evaluationof the
present need for herbicides, particularly in spring cereals, which have a relatively high competitive ability. Spring cerealsaregrownon
53% of the cultivated field area in Finland (National Board of Agriculture, 1990).
The use of herbicidesinspring cereals isnot always profitable (e.g.Evans, 1969; Courtney&
Johnston, 1982; Aamisepp, 1984;Erviö etal., 1991). Substantialcostsavingsinchemical weed control are aimed at, either by usingcontrol thresholds (Heitefussetal., 1987)orby applying reduced herbicide doses (Kudsk, 1989).
The objectiveof this studywastodetermine the yield responses of spring barley and spring wheat to chemical weed control, particularly with lower than recommended herbiciderates.
The herbicidal efficacy in these field experi-mentshasbeen describedbySalonen(1992).
Materials and methods
A total of nine field trialswere conducted in 1986-1988 with a six-row spring barley (cv.
Arra) andspringwheat (cv. Luja) in Southern (Jokioinen) and Central (Ylistaro) Finland.
Cereals were sown on clay soilusingfive seed
rates; 100, 300, 500, 700 and 900 viable kernels
ofbarley m~2 and200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000 kernels of wheatm~2.
Trials were sown with a combined drill and fertilizer applicator which placed the NPK fertilizer (90 kg N ha-1)between the croprows underthe seed bed at a depthof7-9 cm.The distance between croprows was 12-5cm. The experimentalplotswereploughed toadepthof 20 cm every autumn. All these measures
followed the common farming practice in Finland,
Two herbicide mixturesat three dose rates wereappliedatthe3-to4-leafstageof the crop (Zadoks’ scale 13-14)inorder to control the broad-leaved weeds that emerged from the
natural seed bank of the soil. The highest re-commended rate of commercial herbicide mixture containing MCPA (200 g a.i. 1~')and mecprop (400 g a.i. I-1) (Herbotal Plus) was 4-0 1ha~' and that ofMCPA(400ga.i. I-1)and fluroxypyr (100g a.i. 1~') (Starane M) mixture was 1-5 1ha-1. In addition half and one-third
ratesweresprayed.
The experimentaldesignwas asplit-plotwith
crop seed rate and herbicide treatments
comprising main and sub-plot factors,
respec-tively. Therewerefour replicates. Grain yields
werecombined fromanarea of21
m
2 from the centreofeach3 x 10cmplot. The crop yieldwasadjusted to 15% moisture content. Moreover, the following yield components and quality
parameters were determined: number ofears, number of kernels per ear, thousand kernel weight,bulkweight, moisturecontent atharvest and Hagberg’s falling number of wheat.
Results
In 1987, the growingseason wasprolonged due
tothepoor weather conditions during the whole
summer. Consequently, the spring wheat did
not ripen sufficiently to be harvested, so that yieldresults from thatyear arenotavailable.In
othertrials thecropyieldedthe average levelfor springcerealsinFinland.
The weed infestation varied considerably betweenyearsand sites (Table 1). The domin-antweedspecies inthefield trialswere Cheno-podium albumL., Galeopsisspp. L., Stellaria media (L.) Vili. and Viola arvensis Murr.
Chemical weed control efficiently reduced the biomass of weedsatallherbicide ratesapplied (Fig. 1). The resultsfrom 1988areshownas an example of good efficacy which, however, resultedinonly slightly positiveor even erratic yield response compared with the untreated plots. The yield level varied between theyears
and the trial sites.However, theyieldresponse to weed control was similarat all yield levels (Fig. 2). Herbicides neither caused visible phytotoxicity tothe cropnoraffectedtothedry weightofcropplants.
Table I. Occurrence of weedsatharvest in unsprayed plots
sownwith normal seedrates
Weed infestation
1987 JOK 322 10
1988 JOK 306 17
YLI 305 32
Springwheat
1986 JOK 45 54
1988 JOK 301 112
JOK=Jokioinen, YLI=Ylistaro.
494
The proportional yield response toherbicide application compared with untreated crops varied between growth densities and trial sites (Fig. 3).Results werepooled acrosstheyears, sinceno significant interactionwas found. The useof herbicides wasnaturallymore profitable in crop stands of low growth density, and in Ylistaro,where the weed infestationwashigher than in Jokioinen.
Thereduced herbiciderates of Jokioinen gave higher yield increases than the recommended dose. However, the latter was the most economicatYlistaro, where the weed popula-tion was moretolerantforthe herbicides used inourtrials.
When the lowest and highest crop densities were excluded from the calculations as in-appropriate growth densities in practical farming, the yield response to chemical weed
control inspring wheat averaged 202 kg ha-1,
corresponding to ayieldincrease of 8%, andin spring barley 30 kg ha~* (1%). However, the yield response was negative in32% of treated
wheatplotsand in43% of barley plots.
The graphical plotting of results from separ-ate trials (data not shown) revealed that yield responsestochemical weedcontrolwerepoorly related to the weed density at the time of spraying. Yield responses to biomass
produc-tion of weeds also remained fairly low evenin 1988 (Fig. 1), when the weed infestationwas highest. Spring barley in particular managed well, evenwithout herbicides.
Even atarather high weedinfestation, asin 1988,thebenefitofusingreduced herbicide doses
wasclearly demonstratedinspring wheat (Fig.
4). The highest yield increases were achieved
withsubnormalratesof MCPA/fluroxypyr, des-pitethe fact that the lowest weed biomasswasin plotstreated withthe recommended rate.
Fig.1.Dose-responseof cropyield (open symbols)and weed biomass(closed symbols)totheMCPA/mecoproptreatmentin threegrowthdensities of(a) spring barleyand(b) springwheatin Jokioinen in 1988.(O)indicates the nor-mal,(□)200 seeds lower and(O)200 seedshigher sowingdensities.
495
496
Statistically significant differences in yield
parametersbetween untreated and treated plots
were onlydetected insomecases(Table2). No
differenceswere found between herbicidesand
their dose rates.
Discussion
The densityofweedswasratherlowin 1986 due
to the long dry period after sowing (Table 1).
Otherwise,theweed infestationwashigher than the average densityof 173 weedsm“2inFinnish springcereals,but the main weed species inour trials corresponded well with the prevailing
weed floraofcerealfields inFinland (Erviö &
Salonen, 1987). In the presentation ofresults, preference isgivento datafrom 1988,when the
weed infestationwas highest.
The yield benefits for barley resulting from chemical weed control remained rather low.
Similar results have been noted elsewhere (Courtney & Johnston, 1986; Davies et al., 1989). Erviö et al. (1991) reported that the
average yield increase with chemical weed
controlinspringcerealfields in Finland is 123kg ha-1,andthat 60% oftreatmentsare profitable.
InNorway,herbicides have decreased thecrop yieldin 25% of cereal fields (Fykse, 1991), and in Germany more than half of the herbicide applications in spring cereals have been un-profitable (Gerowittetal., 1984).
Our trialsweresituatedonclay soil where the harmful effects of weeds tendtobe less thanon other soiltypes(Kryger, 1985; Hallgren, 1989).
In a comparison between soil types Jensen (1985) found that herbicide treatmentresulted in yield decreases in 27% of alltrials,but in 38%
of the trials conductedonclay soils.
Relationships between crop yield and weed infestation have been described with different models (e.g.Cousens, 1985;Håkansson, 1991).
However, when the weedinfestation is manip-ulated by chemical control (Fig. 4), the effect of
herbicide is also an important factoraffecting
the yield response of the crop (Brain &
Cousens, 1989; Streibiget al., 1989).
Yieldresponsestochemical weed controlmay
be erratic, asin ourtrials with barley (Fig. 1), where the crop managed well in competition against weeds even without herbicide appli-cation, Obviously, the number of weeds assessedatthe time of spraying isinsufficientto
describe the thresholds for chemical weed control in spring cereals (Bleiholder&Nuyken,
1986).Onthe otherhand,theuse of thresholds seems to be more reliable in winter cereals (Heitefussetal., 1987).
Yield results forspringwheat from 1988(Fig.
4) showed thatevenatrelatively high levels of weed infestation the benefit of efficient weed removal can be partly lost if unnecessarily high herbicide rates are applied, as was also shown by Aamisepp (1984), Andersson (1984), Gummesson (1988) and Davies & Whiting (1990). The results from 1988 can be partly explained by the interaction of herbicide and long-lasting drought, which effectively sup-pressed thegrowthof weeds between herbicide
applicationand weed assessment 1month later.
At Jokioinen, the reduced herbicide doses provided a controlefficacyof70-90% and, on
Fig.2. Yield responses ofspring barley( )andspring wheat( ) in Jokioinen and spring barley ( ) in Ylistarotothe control of broad-leaved weeds with different doses of(a) MCPA/mecopropand(b)MCPA/fluroxypyrin crop standssownwith normal seedrate(500and600 seeds m"2ofbarleyand wheat(■)=1986,(A)=1987,(■)=1988.
average, gave higher yield increases than the highestdose,which suppressedweedinfestation bymorethan90%. This is inagreementwiththe
conclusions of Thonke (1986) who reviewed several Scandinavian field trials.
InFinland,the initial growth of spring cereals and weeds is rapid, and the outcomeof their
competition is difficult to predict. The dose reduction appearsto be a morereliable weed controlstrategy thanthresholds.
In conclusion, reduced rates of herbicides provided adequate control of broad-leaved
weeds in terms of crop yield, although the efficacy was lower than that of recommended
Fig.3.Percentageyieldresponse ofspringcerealstoweed control with differentratesofMCPA/mecopropand MCPA/
fluroxypyr.Mean values from1986-1988 in differentsowingdensities.
497
Table 2. Effect of herbicidetreatment on yieldparameters of cropsown with normal seedrate atJokioinen
Parameter Year Crop Untreated Treated P-value
Grain moisture 1986 Barley 25 0 23*6 0 009
atharvest(%) 1988 Wheat 24-7 2M 0 001
1000kernelweight(g) 1986 Wheat 31-9 33-4 0 000
1988 Wheat 30 1 32 1 0 000
Bulkweight(kg) 1988 Wheat 76-2 77-5 0 000
Number ofears(nr2) 1987 Wheat 490 584 0 016 Number of kernels/ear 1987 Barley 23-9 28-3 0 037
doses. High dose rates were profitable only if lesssusceptibleweedspeciesoccurredorincrop
stands of low competitiveness. Particularly in barley sown at recommended seed rates, low
doseratesseemtobeafeasiblewayof reducing theuse of herbicides byatleast25-30%. Under favourable conditionsa dose reduction of50%
or moremaybepossible.
References
Aamisepp A. (1984) Behovsprövad ogräsbekämpning i
vårsäd. Slutrapport. Ogräsoch Ogräsbekämpning,25:e svenskaogräskonferensen, Uppsala,pp. 33-47.
Andersson B. (1984) Utsädesmängderoch MCPA-doseri
vårkorn. Ogräs och Ogräsbekämpning, 25:e svenska ogräskonferensen, Uppsala,pp. 49-58.
Beer E. (1979) ErmittlungderBekämpfungsschwellenund wirtschaftlichen Schadensschwellenvonmonokotylenund dikotylenUnkräutern in Winterweizen undWintergerste anhand von Daten aus der amtlichen Mittelpriifung.
Dissertation.UniversityofGöttingen.
Bleiholder H. & Nuyken W. (1986)Neue Ansätze zur Darstellung und interpretation des Zusammenhanges zwischen denDeckungsgradder Unkräuter und demErtrag von Getreide.Proceedingsofthe EWRSSymposium 1986,
Economic Weed Control, pp. 61-68.
Brain&. &Cousens R.(1989)Anequation todescribe dose responses where there is stimulation ofgrowthatlow doses.
Weed Research,29, 93-96.
Courtney A.D.&Johnston R.T. (1982) The influence of competitivestressand theapplicationofaherbicide, based on 2,4-DP/MCPA,onthe components ofyield inspring barley. AspectsofAppliedBiologyI, 239-246.
CourtneyA.D.&Johnston R.T.(1986) Anassessmentof weed populationsand yieldresponses on spring barley subjectedto a programme of reduced herbicide usage.
Proceedings of the EWRS Sympsoium 1986, Economic Weed Control, pp. 301-308.
Cousens R.(1985)Asimplemodelrelating yieldlosstoweed density.AnnalsofApplied Biology, 107, 239-252.
Davies D.H.K. &WhitingA.J. (1990) Effect of reduced herbicide doseonweedgrowthand cropsafetyin cereals and consequences for grain quality and harvesting.
Proceedings of the EWRS Symposium 1990, Integrated
WeedManagementin Cereals, pp. 331-336.
DaviesD.H.K.,Whiting A.J. & WhytockG.M. (1989).
Yield responsestoherbicide use and weed levels in winter wheat andspring barleyin Scottish trials and consequences for economic models. Proceedingsofthe 1989Brighton
CropProtectionConference Weeds, pp. 955-960.
Elliott J.G.(1978)The economicobjectivesof weed control in cereals.Proceedingsofthe1987 BritishCropProtection
Coference Weeds, pp.829-841.
Elliott J.G. (1980)The economicsignificanceof weeds in theharvestingofgrain. Proceedingsofthe1980 BritishCrop ProtectionConference Weeds, pp. 787-797.
Erviö L.-R. & Salonen J.(1987) Changes in the weed populationofspringcereals in Finland. Annales
Agricul-tureFenniae, 26, 201-226.
ErviO L.-R., Tanskanen T.&Salonen J.(1991) Profitabil-ity of chemical weed control in springcereals. Annales AgriculturaeFenniae, 30, 199-206.
Evans S.A. (1969) Spraying of cereals for the control of weeds.ExperimentalHusbandry,18,102-109.
Fykse H. (1991) Skadetersklar for ugras. Norsk Land-bruksforsking,Suppl. 10, 40-43.
Gerowitt8., BodendörferH.&Heitefuss R.(1984)Zur Wirtschaftlichkeit des Herbizideinsatzes im Getrcide Auswertung von Versuchen des Pflanzenschutzdienstes den Jahren 1977-81. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankheitcn undPflanzenschulz, SonderheftX: pp. 127-135.
Gummesson G. (1987)Kan kemisk bekämpningmot ogräs halveras med bibehållen lönsamhet.Växskyddsrapporter, Jordbruk,42,19-30.
Gummesson G.(1988) Mängden ogräsmedel kan minskas genom bättre anpassningav dosen. Växskyddsrapporter, Jordbruk,49, 13-20.
Hallgren E. (1989)Influence of different factors onthe effect ofsprayingcereals in thespringwith Oxitril 4as regards weeds and grain yield. 2. Influence of crop, developmentalstage,prevailing conditions, geographical and climatic situation, soil type,organiccontentand N-rate onweed stand and effect onweeds.Compositionof weed standatdifferent relativeyields.Weeds and Weed Control.
29th Swedish Weed ControlConference,pp. 39-74.
Håkansson S. (1991) Growth and competition in plant Fig.4.Relationshipbetween the wheatyieldand the biomass
of weedsatharvest in three crop densities(400to800).The in-festation levels of weeds were achieved with MCPA/
fluroxypyr appliedatthe recommended(1),half(2)and one-third dose(3).0 indicates untreatedplots.
498
stands. SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences,Crop Production Science12, Uppsala,241 p.
Heitefuss R., Gerowitt B. & Wahmhoff W. (1987) Development and implementation of weed economic thresholds in the F.R. Germany. Proceedingsofthe1987
British CropProtectionConference Weeds, pp. 1025-1034.
Jensen P.K. (1985) A review ofyieldresponses to weed control in one thousand spring barley experiments.
Proceedingsofthe1985 BritishCropProtectionConference
Weeds, pp. 687-692.
Kryger J. (1985) Muligheder for fastsaettelse af skadetaerskler i vårbyg. 2. Danske
Plantevaernkon-konference!Ukrudt, pp. 203-216.
Kudsk P.(1989) Experienceswith reduced herbicide doses in Denmark and the developmentof the concept of factor-adjusteddoses.ProceedingsoftheBrightonCropProtection Conference Weeds, pp. 545-554.
Mukula J.&Rantanen O.(1987)Climatic riskstotheyield and qualityof field crops in Finland. I. Basic facts about Finnish field crops production. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae,26, 1-18.
National Boardof Agriculture(1990)Monthlyreviewof
AgriculturalStatistics, n:o 7:23. Helsinki.
Salonen J.(1992) Efficacyof reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Research,32, 000-000.
StreibigJ.(1983) Ukrudtssprojtningogmerudbytteikorn.
UgeskriftforJordbrug,128, 811-816.
Streibig J.C., Combellack J.H., Pritchard G.H. &
Richardson R.G. (1989) Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Research, 29,
117-126.
Thonke K.E. (1986) Muligheder for anvendelse af re-ducerede doseringer af herbicider. 3. Danske
Plante-vaernkonference/Ukrudtpp. 2117-124.
499