Paper · 1993 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

Influence of preseason weed management and in-crop treatments in two successive wheat crops 1. Weed seedling numbers and wheat grain yield

PM Dowling; PTW Wong

14
claims
30
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effect of 5 preseason management treatments on seed set reduction of annual weed grasses and their regeneration in the following autumn was evaluated in a 2-year field experiment commencing at Orange in spring 1986. Preseason (spring) treatments were paraquat, glyphosate (2 rates), unsprayed heavy grazing, and unsprayed control. In the first of 2 successive wheat crops (planted 1987), 3 in-crop weed control treatments [control, chlorsulfuron (both sod-seeded), and trifluralin plus cultivation] were imposed. In 1988, the second wheat crop was sown into a cultivated seedbed or direct-drilled. The preseason treatments reduced potential annual grass regeneration by 91-99% compared with the control, with heavy grazing being the best treatment. For each preseason treatment compared with the control, the pattern of actual seedling emergence within the crop during 1987 was similar to that of potential emergence for each grass species (except Lolium rigidum), but numbers were lower and more variable (7-86% of potential numbers). The proportion of Bromus spp. and Vulpia spp. emerging within the crop declined from the first to the second crop, while L. rigidum increased to an average of 93% of the annual grass population in 1988. Trifluralin plus cultivation increased the control of annual grasses in 1987. In 1988, the 1987 in-crop treatments had little carryover effect on annual grass control; however, wheat grain yield was increased by both chlorsulfuron and trifluralin. Preseason management reduced seed set of annual grass weeds, and this control was maintained under cropping for at least 2 years (except for L. rigidum). Wheat grain yield responded to this control. Long-term control of L. rigidum where soil is disturbed appears difficult because of apparent long-lived seed in the soil.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preseason treatments reduced potential annual grass regeneration by 91-99% versus control.

Treatment
preseason treatmentse0
Interactor
annual grasse0weed
Outcome
annual grass regeneratione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
91-99%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The preseason treatments reduced potential annual grass regeneration by 91-99% compared with the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–706 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy grazing was the best preseason treatment for reducing annual grass regeneration.

Treatment
heavy grazinge0
Interactor
annual grasse1weed
Outcome
annual grass regeneratione1
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with heavy grazing being the best treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 708–751 · show in text ↑
e1

“annual grass regeneration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–670 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In-crop grass seedling emergence was 7-86% of potential emergence and more variable.

Outcome
seedling emergence within the crope1
Direction
lowere0
Value
7-86%e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“numbers were lower and more variable (7-86% of potential numbers)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 973–1038 · show in text ↑
e1

“actual seedling emergence within the crop during 1987”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–877 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The proportion of Bromus spp. emerging within the crop declined from the first to second crop.

Interactor
Bromus spp.Bromuse0weed
Outcome
emerging within the crope0
Direction
declinede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bromus
Bromus · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Forest & Kim Starr · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The proportion of Bromus spp. and Vulpia spp. emerging within the crop declined from the first to the second crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1040–1153 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The proportion of Vulpia spp. emerging within the crop declined from the first to second crop.

Interactor
Vulpia spp.Festuca subgen. Vulpiae0weed
Outcome
emerging within the crope0
Direction
declinede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The proportion of Bromus spp. and Vulpia spp. emerging within the crop declined from the first to the second crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1040–1153 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lolium rigidum increased to an average 93% of annual grasses in the second crop.

Interactor
L. rigidumLolium rigidume0weed
Outcome
annual grass populatione0
Direction
increasede0
Value
93%e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lolium rigidum
Lolium rigidum · InteractorGideon Pisanty ( Gidip ) גדעון פיזנטי · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“L. rigidum increased to an average of 93% of the annual grass population in 1988”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1161–1241 · show in text ↑
e1

“Lolium rigidum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–966 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trifluralin plus cultivation increased annual grass control in 1987.

Treatment
Trifluralin plus cultivatione0
Interactor
annual grassese0weed
Outcome
control of annual grassese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trifluralin plus cultivation increased the control of annual grasses in 1987”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1243–1319 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 1987 in-crop treatments had little carryover effect on annual grass control in 1988.

Treatment
1987 in-crop treatmentse0
Interactor
annual grasse0weed
Outcome
annual grass controle0
Direction
littlee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the 1987 in-crop treatments had little carryover effect on annual grass control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1330–1409 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

chlorsulfuron increased wheat grain yield.

Treatment
chlorsulfurone0
Outcome
wheat grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wheat grain yield was increased by both chlorsulfuron and trifluralin”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1420–1489 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

trifluralin increased wheat grain yield.

Treatment
trifluraline0
Outcome
wheat grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wheat grain yield was increased by both chlorsulfuron and trifluralin”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1420–1489 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preseason management reduced seed set of annual grass weeds.

Treatment
Preseason managemente0
Interactor
annual grass weedse0weed
Outcome
seed set of annual grass weedse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Preseason management reduced seed set of annual grass weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1550 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Annual grass weed control persisted under cropping for at least two years except for L. rigidum.

Interactor
annual grass weedse1weed
Outcome
controle0
Qualifier
at least 2 years (except for L. rigidum)e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“this control was maintained under cropping for at least 2 years (except for L. rigidum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1556–1643 · show in text ↑
e1

“annual grass weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1532–1550 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat grain yield responded to preseason weed control.

Treatment
Preseason managemente1
Outcome
grain yielde0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wheat grain yield responded to this control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1645–1688 · show in text ↑
e1

“Preseason management reduced seed set of annual grass weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1550 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors consider long-term L. rigidum control difficult where soil is disturbed.

Interactor
L. rigidumLolium rigidume0weed
Outcome
Long-term control of L. rigidume0
Qualifier
where soil is disturbede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lolium rigidum
Lolium rigidum · InteractorGideon Pisanty ( Gidip ) גדעון פיזנטי · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Long-term control of L. rigidum where soil is disturbed appears difficult”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1690–1763 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–91 · show in text ↑

trifluralin · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

9 papers: 4 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

chlorsulfuron · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

31 papers: 12 positive, 19 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

trifluralin · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

grazing · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

20 papers: 6 positive, 14 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.