Paper · 2013 · Progress in Plant Protection

Yielding and weed infestation of oats (Avena sativa L.) grown in monoculture depending on weed control method and stubble catch crop

Dorota Gawęda; Małgorzata Haliniarz

6
claims
8
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The two‐factorial field experiment consisted of different methods of weed control in oat crops (mechanical, mechanical + chemical, and chemical), as well as types of annually ploughed down stubble catch crops (treatment without stubble catch crop, treatments with the following crops white mustard, lacy phacelia, a mixture of legumes − narrow‐leaf lupin + field pea). In the experiment conducted in 2009–2011, the oat variety Furman was grown in the same place year after year. Weeding the oat crop that involved only 2‐fold harrowing (mechanical method) was not effective in reducing the number and air‐dry weight of weeds. Prominent reduction in the number and weight of weeds was registered in the treatments with all stubble catch crops as compared to oats grown without regeneration plants. The best control results were achieved in the treatment with ploughing down the white mustard, after which the number of weeds decreased by 61.0% and their air‐dry weight by 61.7% in reference to the object without catch crop. Chemical and mechanical + chemical weed control as well as all ploughed down stubble catch crops significantly reduced the number of Amaranthus retroflexus that occurred to dominate on the oat canopy. W dwuczynnikowym doświadczeniu polowym uwzględniono sposób odchwaszczania owsa: mechaniczny, mechaniczno + chemiczny i chemiczny oraz rodzaje przyorywanych corocznie międzyplonów ścierniskowych (obiekt bez międzyplonów, gorczyca biała, facelia błękitna, mieszanka strączkowych − łubin wąskolistny + groch siewny pastewny). W eksperymencie prowadzonym w latach 2009−2011 uprawiano owies odmiana Furman w stanowisku po sobie. Odchwaszczanie owsa polegające na wykonaniu jedynie 2‐krotnego bronowania (metoda mechaniczna) okazało się nieskuteczne w redukcji liczby i powietrznie suchej masy chwastów. Udowodniono zmniejszenie liczby i masy chwastów po wszystkich międzyplonach ścierniskowych w porównaniu do uprawy owsa bez rośliny regenerującej. Najkorzystniejsze okazało się przyoranie gorczycy białej, po której liczba chwastów zmniejszyła się o 61,0%, a ich powietrznie sucha masa o 61,7% względem obiektu bez międzyplonu. Chemiczny i mechaniczno + chemiczny sposób pielęgnacji łanu oraz wszystkie przyorywane międzyplony ścierniskowe w znacznym stopniu ograniczyły liczbę dominującego w łanie owsa gatunku Amaranthus retroflexus.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two-fold harrowing alone did not effectively reduce weed number and air-dry weight in oats.

Treatment
2‐fold harrowinge0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
number and air‐dry weight of weedse0
Direction
not effective in reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weeding the oat crop that involved only 2‐fold harrowing (mechanical method) was not effective in reducing the number and air‐dry weight of weeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–625 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All stubble catch crops reduced weed number and weight compared with no regeneration plants.

Treatment
all stubble catch cropse0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
number and weight of weedse0
Direction
reductione0
Comparator
oats grown without regeneration plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Prominent reduction in the number and weight of weeds was registered in the treatments with all stubble catch crops as compared to oats grown without regeneration plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 626–796 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

White mustard catch crop reduced weed number by 61.0% relative to no catch crop.

Treatment
ploughing down the white mustarde0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
number of weedse0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
61.0%e0
Comparator
object without catch crope0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“ploughing down the white mustard, after which the number of weeds decreased by 61.0% and their air‐dry weight by 61.7% in reference to the object without catch crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–1023 · show in text ↑
t0

“oats (Avena sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 33–55 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

White mustard catch crop reduced weed air-dry weight by 61.7% relative to no catch crop.

Treatment
ploughing down the white mustarde0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
air‐dry weighte0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
61.7%e0
Comparator
object without catch crope0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“ploughing down the white mustard, after which the number of weeds decreased by 61.0% and their air‐dry weight by 61.7% in reference to the object without catch crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–1023 · show in text ↑
t0

“oats (Avena sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 33–55 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chemical weed control and mechanical plus chemical control reduced Amaranthus retroflexus number.

Treatment
Chemical and mechanical + chemical weed controle0
Interactor
Amaranthus retroflexusAmaranthus retroflexuse0weed
Outcome
number of Amaranthus retroflexuse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Amaranthus retroflexus
Amaranthus retroflexus · InteractorLynk media · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Chemical and mechanical + chemical weed control as well as all ploughed down stubble catch crops significantly reduced the number of Amaranthus retroflexus that occurred to dominate on the oat canopy.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1024–1224 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All ploughed-down catch crops significantly reduced Amaranthus retroflexus number.

Treatment
all ploughed down stubble catch cropse0
Interactor
Amaranthus retroflexusAmaranthus retroflexuse0weed
Outcome
number of Amaranthus retroflexuse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Amaranthus retroflexus
Amaranthus retroflexus · InteractorLynk media · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“all ploughed down stubble catch crops significantly reduced the number of Amaranthus retroflexus that occurred to dominate on the oat canopy.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1224 · show in text ↑

tillage · weed · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

cover crop · weed · Avena sativa (oats)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.