Influences of field pea (Pisum sativum) density on grain yield and competitiveness with annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in south-eastern Australia
The variation in field pea grain yield and competitiveness with annual ryegrass due to crop density, row spacing and cultivar was determined to enable farmers to better manage weeds with cultural control tactics. Crop density varied with seeding rate, cultivar, row spacing and year. Higher seeding rates were required to reach equivalent plant densities in cv. Dinkum (short, semi-leafless) compared with cv. Dundale (tall, conventional-leaf), and at 36 cm compared with 18 cm row spacing. Field pea grain yield was reduced more at low crop densities, in Dinkum, at 36 cm row spacing, and in the presence of weeds. Percentage yield losses from weed competition were similar in both cultivars (about 70–80%) at a low density of 10 plants/m2 in 2 seasons. At higher crop densities Dinkum had a larger loss than Dundale (i.e. at 30 plants/m2 losses were 60 and 35%, respectively, compared with 50 and 5% at 60 plants/m2). Seasonal variation influenced the effect of crop density on yield loss from weeds. The percentage yield loss from weeds in 1993 ranged from about 90 to 40% at plant densities of 10 to 40 plants/m2, in contrast to 1995 when 40% yield loss occurred at all these densities. Ryegrass dry weight was reduced with increasing field pea density in both years, and in the tall more than the short cultivar in 1 year. Maintaining recommended field pea seeding rates has considerable financial benefits in both weed-free (around $100/ha) and weed-affected crops (to $400/ha). In weedy situations, integrating cultural practices such as higher seeding rates and choice of cultivar that enhance crop competitiveness will improve weed management in south-eastern Australia.
Lemerle, D., Diffey, S. M. & Verbeek, B. (2006). Influences of field pea (Pisum sativum) density on grain yield and competitiveness with annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46 (11), 1465-1472.