Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Improvement of Weeds Management System and Fertilisers Application in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivation Technologies

Improvement of Weeds Management System and Fertilisers Application in Winter Wheat (Triticum... Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 DOI: 10.2478/agri-2021-0007 Original paper Improvement of weeds management system and fert Il Is ers appl Ica t Ion In w Inter whea t (Tri Ticum aes Tivum l .) tcul Iv ta Ion technolog Ies 1, 2 3 1 NAZIH YACER REBOUH *, MORAD LATATI , PETER POLITYKO , ZARGAR MEISAM , 1 3 1 1 NYASHA JOHN KAVHIZA , NINA GARMASCH , ELENA PAKINA , MARINA LYSHKO , 1 1 1 ALBERT ENGERIBO , ELCHIN ORUJOV AND VALENTIN VVEDENSKIY Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation Laboratoire d’Amélioration Intégrative des Productions Végétales, Algiers, Algeria GNU Moscow Research Institute of Agriculture “Nemchinovka”, Russia Rebouh, N.Y., Latati, M., Polityko, P., Meisam, Z., Kavhiza, N.J., Garmasch, N., Pakina, E., Lyshko, M., Engeribo, A., Orujov, E. and Vvedenskiy, V. (2021). Improvement of weeds management system and fertilisers application in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivation technologies. Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67(2), 76 – 86. Wheat production plays a central role in the Russian agricultural system and significant land area is dedicated to this strategic crop. However, the wheat enterprise is highly constrained by weed interference which cause serious yield losses hence minimizing production income. The main objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of three various cultivation technologies as basic, intensive, and highly intensive systems on wheat biological efficiency. Three weed species Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media, and Viola arvensis, and three winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties Moscovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3) were studied. The data was analysed as a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Weed density, biological efficiency, yield performances, and selected qualitative parameters (measured through protein and gluten contents) were determined as affected by different cultivation technologies. The results showed that the high intensive cultivation technology (T3) was the most effective in reducing weed infestation levels as 2 2 2 follows (0.3 plant/m Echinochloa crus-galli, 0.5 plant/m Stellaria media and 0.4 plant/m Viola arvensis) with biological efficiency of 96%, while 81% and 90% were recorded with basic and intensive cultivation system respectively. Moreover, the highest wheat yield 10.6 t/ha was obtained by T3, with the greatest grain quality 5% higher than basic cultivation technology designated in T1. The results were variety-dependent revealing the intrinsic genetic performances and the different patterns of high competitive ability. The current results open real opportunities concerning the implementation of potent wheat production systems. Key words: gluten content, herbicide, proteins content, weed, wheat varieties, yield Chemical method plays a key role in controlling resistance particularly in major field crops (wheat, weeds that infest wheat fields. Herbicides are the rice, maize, soybean), has become a widespread most effective weed control tools developed recent- problem posing a formidable challenge for global ly in all over the world, suppressing 90 – 99% of food production systems (Beckie et al. 2000; Ibra- weeds (Talgre et al. 2008). Nevertheless, herbicide him et al. 2016; Pansu et al. 2018). Currently many Rebouh Nazih Yacer, PhD. (*Corresponding author), Meisam Zargar, Kavhiza Nyasha John, PhD. student, Pakina Elena, PhD., Lyshko Marina, PhD., Engeribo Albert, Orujov Elchin, PhD. student, Vvedenskiy Valentin, Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation. E-mail: n.yacer16@outlook.fr Latati Morad, PhD., Laboratoire d’Amélioration Intégrative des Productions Végétales (C2711100), Département de Produc- tions égétales, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique (ENSA), Avenue Hassane Badi, El Harrach, Algiers 16200, Algeria Polityko Petr, prof., Garmasch Nina, PhD., GNU Moscow Research Institute of Agriculture “Nemchinovka”, Russia © 2021 Authors. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonComercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 76 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 weed species are developing resistance to herbi- to new management techniques (Vila-Aiub et al. cides from different modes of action, and becom- 2019). Almost, direct yield losses due to weed in- ing more difficult and expensive to be controlled. festations are ranged 20 – 40% in the global wheat Several studies in the recent years revealed that con- production (Fahad et al. 2015; Gharde et al. 2018). tinued use of herbicides with the same mode of ac- For mentioned reasons, cropping systems need new tion (MOA) applies selection pressure on the weed management strategies, including cultural practices population, this increases the genotype frequency and genetic engineering technique (development of of resistant individuals that eventually becomes the new varieties) to suppress weed growth and spread dominant component of the population (Moham- that cause wheat yield losses. The optimization of madi et al. 2018). As a solution, chemical manage- weed management systems, therefore, is becoming ment strategies such as rotating active ingredients indispensable in wheat production systems to ensure with the different MOAs and combining (tank mix) high yields and better grain quality. herbicides from the various chemical families have A three year study was carried out to investigate been established to evade herbicide resistance. The the effectiveness of three cultivation technologies selection of such herbicides should be based on bio- included fertilisers, herbicides, and growth regula- logical knowledge of all dominant weed species in tors in different combinations and doses to control the field, while maintaining a balance between her - weeds in order to estimate their influence on winter bicide costs, weed thresholds, and environmental wheat yield and grain quality. impacts (Nazarko et al. 2005; Chhokar et al. 2012). In addition to the chemical methods, other con- MATERIAL AND METHODS trol practices were developed to control weeds in farming systems. For example, increasing weed- Experimental site crop competition, through the development of crop Experiments were conducted over three wheat varieties with the high competitive ability can be il- growing seasons (2016 – 2017, 2017 – 2018, and lustrated. Previous studies reported that some crop 2018 – 2019) at the Moscow Research Institute of genotypes had a high competitive ability against Agriculture “Nemchinovka”, Odintsovo district, weeds (Mason et al. 2007; Fragasso et al. 2013). Russia (55° 45′ N, 37°37′ E and 200 m altitude). Hence, De Vita et al. (2017) investigated the ef- fects of inter-row spacing as a cultural method on Climatic conditions wheat competition against weeds. Mentioned study The climate in the Moscow region was mid-con- demonstrated that competitive ability directly de- tinental characterized by mild winter, occasional pends on the wheat cultivars, thus, crop rotation flaw, and warm damp summer. The mean annual was perfumed to control weed populations. It has temperature was 6.3°C. The average temperature of been reported that crop rotation reduces growth, fe- the warm-season (May-October) was 13.5°C; the av- cundity, and weed establishment by disrupting their erage monthly temperature in January and July was life cycle (Nichols et al. 2015). Furthermore, it was –8.40°C and 18.10°C, respectively. Positive ambi- observed that monoculture or continuous cropping ent temperatures are experienced for an average of within a field increases weeds density, whereas 215 days. Moreover, temperatures above 10°C (veg- breaks in the cropping sequence with other crops of- etation season) occur for an average of 130 days. ten significantly diminish weeds interference (Hos- The average cool season (November-March) tem- seini et al. 2014). perature was –5.70°C. Mean annual precipitation Crop production for the purpose of human con- was 628 mm: 56% in the spring-summer season and sumption such as wheat is of paramount impor- 26% in autumn. The average precipitation rate from tance worldwide (Polityko et al. 2020). Weeds are May to September was 339 mm. one of the major constraints causing serious losses in wheat yields and quality (Van der Meulen et al. Weed density estimation 2017). Moreover, weed communities possess high Weeds were investigated in three to five leaves phonological plasticity which enables them to adapt stage of winter wheat. The dominant weed species 77 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 during three years of the experiment were: Viola ar- Sowing was done at the beginning of September vensis, Stellaria media and Echinochloa crus-galli. with a planter (seeder SN 16 PM) at a rate of 5 mil- These species typically germinate in autumn and lion seeds/ha. spring in the condition of Moscow region. The weed A modern combine harvester was used to harvest density was calculated manually before treatments wheat (Polityko et al. 2020). The wheat was har- and after treatments (28 days after treatments). The vested around the mid-August at ripening stage. weed density was expressed as number of plant/m² The crop rotation implemented in the experimen- in each plot according to the cultivation technology. tal field was as legumes, spring cereals and winter The total area of the experimental field was 700 m . cereals. Particularly, the crop that preceded the win- The total area was sub-divided into three blocks; ter wheat investigated in the study was peas. each block was further subdivided into nine plots Tillage operations were done before each grow- in which the total area of each plot was 25 m . The ing season after harvesting the predecessor crop, experiment was performed in three replications for with a ploughing depth of 20 – 22 cm. each treatment. Biological efficiency Experimental design and treatments The biological efficiency effectuated by the cul- For three years of the study, the experiments were tivation technologies was calculated manually 28 laid out as Randomized Complete Block Design days after treatment and before harvest of winter with three replications. Three cultivation technolo- wheat. Weed density was investigated and calculat- gies [basic (T1), intensive (T2) and high intensive ed as number of plant/m² in each experimental plot, (T3)] were examined as the main plots whilst wheat according to the cultivation technologies applied, varieties [Moscovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya using the following formula (Polityko et al. 2020): 17 (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3)] were as sub- plots. BE [%] = 100 ‒ (Nbr.a × 100 / Nbr.b) (1) A description of experimental inputs for all three cultivation technologies is presented in Table 1. The BE ‒ biological efficiency [%]; Nbr.a ‒ number of herbicides were applied to wheat seedlings at the plant/m², after treatment; Nbr.b ‒ number of plant/m², three-five leaves stage. The fertilisation was carried before treatment; 100 ‒ conversion coefficient [%]. out in pre-sowing with top dressing, at the tillering and earing stages. T a b l e 1 Applied herbicide and fertilisers in different cultivation technologies Cultivation technologies Fertilisers [kg/ha] Crop protection details Basal application N (30), P O (30), K О (90) [kg/ha] 2 5 2 1. Basic (T1) • Herbicide: Lintur 180 [g/ha] in pre-sowing and N (30) [kg/ha] at the tillering phase Basal application N (60), P O (60), K О (120) [kg/ha] 2 5 2 • Herbicide: Accurate Extra 25 [g/ha] 2. Intensive (T2) in pre-sowing, Top dressing, at the tillering phase, • Growth regulator: Sapress 0.3 [L/ha] N (30) [kg/ha] • Herbicide: Accurate Extra 35 [g/ha] + Basal application N (90), P O (90), K О (150) [kg/ha] 2 5 2 Tandem 25 [g/ha] 3. High Intensive (T3) in pre-sowing, Top dressing, at the tillering and earing phases, N (30) and N (30) [kg/ha], respectively • Growth regulator: Sapress 0.3 [L/ha] 78 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 Determination of protein and gluten content Statistical analysis Data analysis was performed using Statview Selected qualitative parameters (determined via 4.02 software (Abacus Concepts Inc., Berkeley, CA, protein and gluten content) were measured for all USA). Values for each variable were expressed as winter wheat varieties. the mean ± SEM (Standard Error of Mean). Vari- The percentage of protein content was analysed ables used for comparison purposes were the three by calculating the total nitrogen concentration in weed species abundance as influenced by the three grain using the Kjeldahl method (Kjeldahl 1883), cultivation technologies: Basic (T1), Intensive (T2), the following formula was used: and High Intensive (T3). Differences between treat- ments (wheat yield, gluten content, and proteins Protein [%] = [(N ×100) / (100 – W)] × K (2) content) were assessed using Analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a signifi cance of p-value˂0.05, and N ‒ the nitrogen content in the grain [%]; W ‒ the Tukey’s test was used for mean comparisons in each moisture content of the grain or its processed prod- treatment that was significant. Linear regression was ucts [%]; K ‒ conversion coefficient of nitrogen used to evaluate the relationship between biological content to protein, equal to: 5.7 for wheat. efficiency of cultivation technologies, wheat yield and grain quality. The gluten content in wheat grain was calculated by hand washing method (Polityko et al. 2020). The amount of raw or dry gluten in the grain %, calcu- RESULTS lated to the first decimal place, for dry-to the second decimal place by the following formula: Weed infestation Figure 1 shows weed infestation of the three Gluten [%] = MG / Mg × 100 (3) winter wheat species after treatments. Weed infesta- tion levels were highest before treatment application MG ‒ the number of raw or dry gluten [g]; Mg ‒ as Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media and Viola the number of the sample of ground grain [g]; arvensis 30, 18 and 16 plant/m , respectively. How- 100 ‒ conversion coefficient [%]. ever, after treatment, a significant weed reduction Figure 1. Influence of the cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) on weed infestation levels of the three studied species 79 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 T a b l e 2 Grain yield and quality variation of each wheat varieties under different studied cultivation technology Cultivation Varieties Year Yield Protein Gluten technology b c c 2017 9.5 ± 0.23 14.1 ± 0.05 30.4 ± 0.11 d b b Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1) 2018 5.2 ± 0.05 16.4 ± 0.05 32.8 ± 0.08 bc b b 2019 7.8 ± 0.20 16.1 ± 0.05 32.2 ± 0.10 ab c c 2017 9.7 ± 0.11 14.2 ± 0.11 28.3 ± 0.15 c c c Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2) 2018 6.4 ± 0.05 14.5 ± 0.05 29.1 ± 0.11 T1 – basic c b c 2019 7.4 ± 0.03 16.9 ± 0.11 33.8 ± 0.10 b c c 2017 9.9 ± 0.28 14.8 ± 0.05 31.2 ± 0.05 c c c Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) 2018 7.1 ± 0.06 15.1 ± 0.05 30.2 ± 0.10 c b ab 2019 7.4 ± 0.03 17.6 ± 0.11 35.2 ± 0.15 ab b c 2017 10.5 ± 0.24 15.4 ± 0.05 31.5 ± 0.05 b b ab Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1) 2018 8.4 ± 0.11 17.7 ± 0.05 36.7 ± 0.15 b ab a 2019 8.2 ± 0.10 19.1 ± 0.05 38.2 ± 0.15 ab b b 2017 10.4 ± 0.23 15.6 ± 0.10 33.2 ± 0.08 c b b T2 – intensive Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2) 2018 7.1 ± 0.14 16.1 ± 0.05 32.2 ± 0.15 bc b a 2019 7.9 ± 0.11 17.8 ± 0.11 37.6 ± 0.15 a b b 2017 13.1 ± 0.17 15.6 ± 0.05 32.5 ± 0.05 c b b Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) 2018 7.3 ± 0.05 16.4 ± 0.05 32.8 ± 0.10 b ab a 2019 8.3 ± 0.05 18.9 ± 0.11 37.2 ± 0.15 ab b 2017 14.1 ± 0.17 15.5 ± 0.05 33.4 ± 0.20 b ab ab Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1) 2018 9.03 ± 0.17 18.3 ± 0.05 36.6 ± 0.10 b a a 2019 8.7 ± 0.1 19.6 ± 0.11 39.2 ± 0.10 a b ab 2017 13.3 ± 0.17 16.8 ± 0.05 35.1 ± 0.05 T3 – high b b b Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2) 2018 8.2 ± 0.11 16.9 ± 0.17 33.4 ± 0.08 intensive a ab a 2019 8.03 ± 0.14 18.9 ± 0.05 39.8 ± 0.05 a b b 2017 13.3 ± 0.16 16.5 ± 0.05 33.9 ± 0.10 c b b Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) 2018 7.6 ± 0.11b 16.8 ± 0.05 33.6 ± 0.10 b ab a 2019 8.7 ± 0.05 19.4 ± 0.11 39.8 ± 0.05 Cultivation technology ≤0.002 ≤0.002 ≤0.002 Variety ≤0.003 ≤0.002 ≤0.003 Year ≤0.002 ≤0.004 ≤0.002 p-value Cultivation technology × Variety ≤0.002 ≤0.003 ≤0.005 Cultivation technology × Year ≤0.006 ≤0.005 ≤0.004 Variety × Year ≤0.003 ≤0.007 ≤0.006 Cultivation technology ×Variety × Year ≤0.004 ≤0.005 ≤0.008 Values represent the average of 3 replicates ± SE (standard errors), p-values from ANOVA (cultivation technology, variety, year, cultivation technology × variety, cultivation technology × year, variety × year and cultivation technology × variety × year). Different letters in column indicate significant difference between means and they were determined by Tukey test 80 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 value was observed for all three species. High in- 2018, and 2019). Cultivation technology (T3, high tensive cultivation technology T3 determined as the intensive) was the most effective in controlling most effective treatment in weed control, attaining weeds during the trial, since the weed density de- 2 2 0.3 plant/m Echinochloa crus-galli, 0.5 plant/m creased over the years as shown by the following 2 2 2 Stellaria media and 0.4 plant/m in Viola arvensis. values 0.6 plant/m ± 0.02, 0.3 plant/m ± 0.02, and Cultivation technologies 1 and 2 also showed high 0.2 plant/m ± 0.01 in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respec- efficacy in reducing weed densities, since the weed tively. control was ranged 75 ‒ 80% and 85 ‒ 93%, respec- The biological efficiency of the investigated tively. cultivation technologies is shown in Figure 3. The Figure 2 exhibits the effects of the three applied highest biological efficiency was obtained when cultivation technologies during the study (2017, cultivation technologies 2 and 3 were used with Figure 2. Effect of the three cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) on biological efficiency during the study period (2017, 2018 and 2019) Figure 3. The biological efficiency of the investigated cultivation technologies to control weed (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) 81 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 90% and 96%, respectively. The cultivation tech- (T3) gave the best yields whatever the considered nology 1 also seems to be effective in suppressing wheat variety. It is noted that there was no signif- weeds, since 87, 81, and 88% weed biomass was icant difference in the yield potential of all studied reduced in Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media, varieties. Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1), Nemchi- and Viola arvensis, respectively. novskaya 17 variety (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) yielded 10.6 ± 0.14 t/ha, 9.8 ± 0.39 Yield performance and grain quality t/ha and 9.9 ± 0.21 t/ha respectively throughout the Figure 4 displays yield performances of the three study. On the other hand, the lowest yield was re- winter wheat varieties attributed to the cultivation corded when the basic cultivation technology was technologies. High intensive cultivation technology Figure 4. Yield performances of the three studied winter wheat varieties (Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2), and Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3)) as influenced by the cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) Figure 5. Protein and gluten contents of the three studied winter wheat varieties (Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2), and Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3)) attributed to the cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) 82 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 implemented (T1) in all wheat varieties 7.5 ± 0.45 Figure 6 shows the relationship between biolog- (V1), 7.8 ± 0.29 (V2) and 8.1 ± 0.27 t/ha (V3). ical efficiency of treatments, wheat yield, and grain Grain quality was analysed based on protein and quality by using linear regression. The biological gluten contents in the different wheat varieties. The efficiency of cultivation technologies is not correlat - results showed that the protein and gluten content = 0.05, however protein and ed with grain yield r increased significantly by intensity of cultivation gluten contents enhance with increasing biological 2 2 technologies (Figure 5). The highest protein and efficiency of treatments r = 0.50 and r = 0.52, re- gluten content were observed when the high inten- spectively. sive cultivation technology was performed (T3) for all tested varieties in the values 17.8% ± 0.30 (V1), 17.5% ± 0.32 (V2) and 17.6% ± 0.42 (V3) for protein DISCUSSION content and 36.4% ± 0.90 (V1), 36.1% ± 0.59 (V2) and 36.7% ± 0.63 (V3) for gluten content. Weeds are a serious challenge in wheat produc- In Table 2, the analysis of variance for grain tion. They generate colossal yield losses through the yield and quality (protein and gluten content) re- competition for nutrients with crops. An effective vealed that the cultivation technology, variety, and weed management system in modern agriculture year had a highly significant effect on the yield and is indispensable for the achievement of high grain yield. Here we demonstrate the practicability of var- grain quality (p ≤ 0.05). In addition, the yield and ied levels of cultivation technologies in enhancing grain quality were significantly affected by the in- crop competitive ability against the weeds, hence, teraction between all studied treatments (cultivation minimizing crop losses and simultaneously aug- technology × variety, cultivation technology × year, menting grain quality. Precursory studies evaluating variety × year, and cultivation technology × variety the effect of herbicides and fertilisers in controlling × year) (p ≤ 0.05). Figure 6. The relationship between biological efficiency of cultivation technologies, wheat grain yield, protein and gluten contents 83 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 weeds have illustrated that compliance with the doses chinovskaya 85) seem to have the high competitive of inputs and timely application improve wheat ability, which resulted in reduced weed pressure and yield and grain quality (Latati et al. 2019; Rebouh diffusion in the cropping system. These results cor- et al. 2019). roborate the findings of a great deal of the previous Herbicides have become one of the most used works, which demonstrated the importance of the methods for weed control. The present study was competitive ability of the cultivated genotypes in designed to determine the effect of three cultivation weed management (Bastiaans et al. 2008; Andrew technologies, which also embraced the use of herbi- et al. 2015). cides to control weeds in the winter wheat crop. The Weed resistance to herbicides is increasingly results showed that the studied cultivation technol- becoming problematic in crop production systems ogies had favorable biological efficiency to control across the globe. The repeated use of herbicides Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media and Viola with the same mode of action ultimately leads to the arvensis. The high intensive cultivation technolo- rapid spread of the resistant genotypes in the weed gy was the most effective among all experimental population (Heap et al. 2018; Nakka et al. 2019). treatments, since 87, 81 and 88% efficiency was ob- The established spatio-temporal analysis to study tained for Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media the effect of cultivation technologies on weed spe- and Viola arvensis suppression, respectively. This cies abundance carried out over three years of trials was likely due to the presence of florasulam and (Figure 2) showed that the investigated cultivation tribenuron-methyl belonging to triazolopyrimidine technologies reduced weeds infestation levels over class, which impedes the biosynthesis of branched- the years. This is probably due to the combined ef- chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine and valine) fect of crop rotation and tillage before the sowing by inhibiting the enzyme ALS also known as AHAS season, which optimized the efficacy of herbicides in (Weis et al. 2008). weed control. These results were in consistent with Baghestani et al. (2007) and Zand et al. (2010) the findings reported by Mishra and Singh (2012), reported that florasulam and tribenuron-methyl were whereby tillage followed by herbicide application very effective for the management of Echinochloa increased biological efficiency and reduced the crus-galli, Stellaria media and Viola arvensis, their chances of the weeds developing resistance to ap- findings are in agreement with those reported in the plied herbicides. Messaoudi et al. (2020) and Mac- current study. High intensive cultivation technology Laren et al. (2021) also noticed that the combined including florasulam and tribenuron-methyl (Tan- tillage-crop rotation provides better weed control re- dem), belonging to triazolopyrimidine, significantly sults than tillage-monoculture combination, which 2 2 , 1.9 plant/m and reduced weed density 1.8 plant/m leads us to conclude that weed management de- 1.2 plant/m for Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria pends on several factors that constitute cultivation media and Viola arvensis, respectively. technology such as herbicide, crop rotation, tillage, Murphy and Lemerle (2006) have shown that the fertilisation, genetic characteristics of cultivars and type and rate of fertilisers used play an important others. role in weed population shifts and an inappropriate Previous studies demonstrated that herbicide dose of fertilisers significantly affects the abundance use generally does not affect wheat yields, but in- of weeds in crops. For example, the number of weed creases grain quality of crops (Storkey et al. 2003; individuals decreases and their biomass increases Benjamin et al. 2010; Gaba et al. 2016). This study with enhancing nitrogen fertiliser levels (Mahn et was premised on assessing the efficacy of the her - al. 1988; Tang et al. 2014). bicides both in weed control and enhancement of In the current study, the implemented fertiliser wheat yield and the grain quality. The analyses of rates [N (60 – 150), P O (30 – 90), K О (90 – 150)] the relationship between biological efficiency of 2 5 2 were balanced which promoted wheat crop growth, treatments, wheat yield and grain quality by using resulting in closed crop stands and limited light the linear regression did not show any relationship for weed communities. In addition, winter wheats = 0.05), between wheat yields and herbicide use (r (Moskovskaya 40, Nemchinovskaya 17 and Nem- however, there is a moderately positive relationship 84 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 Deihimfard, R. (2007). Weed control and wheat (Triticum between protein, gluten content, and biological effi- aestivum L.) yield under application of 2,4-D plus carfen- 2 2 ciency of herbicide r = 0.50, r = 0.52, respectively trazone-ethyl and florasulam plus flumetsulam: Evalua - (Figure 6). This is probably due to the competitive tion of the efficacy. Crop Protection, 26(12), 1759 – 1764. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2007.03.007. ability of the cultivated genotypes, which increas- Bastiaans, L., Paolini, R. and Baumann, D.T. (2008). Focus on es their nutrient uptake rate, thus improving grain ecological weed management: What is hindering adoption? Weed Research, 48(6), 481 – 491. DOI:10.1111/j.1365- quality (Van der Meulen et al. 2017; Polityko et al. 3180.2008.00662.x 2020). Moreover, our findings from the previous Beckie, H.J., Heap, I.M., Smeda, R.J. and Hall, L.M. (2000). study where we explored the nutrient use efficien- Screening for herbicide resistance in weeds 1. Weed Technology, 14(2), 428 – 445. DOI:10.1614/0890-03 cy of the winter wheat cultivars investigated in the 7X(2000)014[0428:SFHRIW]2.0.CO;2. current work exhibited that Moskovskaya 40, Nem- Benjamin, L.R., Milne, A.E., Parsons, D.J. and Lutman, P.J.W. (2010). A model to simulate yield losses in winter wheat chinovskaya 17 and Nemchinovskaya 85 had high caused by weeds, for use in a weed management decision nutrient uptake capacity (Rebukh et al. 2019). support system. Crop Protection, 29(11), 1264 – 1273. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2010.07.015. Chhokar, R.S., Sharma, R.K. and Sharma, I. (2012). Weed man- agement strategies in wheat-A review. Journal of Wheat Re- CONCLUSIONS search [online], 4(2), 1 – 21. Available at: https://sawbar.in/ wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Weed-managment-stratergies- in-wheat-A-review.pdf [Accessed 22 Sep. 2020]. Weeds are one of the major constraints in crop De Vita, P., Colecchia, S.A., Pecorella, I. and Saia, S. (2017). yields and quality, causing huge economic losses. Reduced inter-row distance improves yield and competi- tion against weeds in a semi-dwarf durum wheat variety. The present study showed that the weed manage- European Journal of Agronomy, 85, 69 – 77. DOI:10.1016/j. ment systems by the using several factors including eja.2017.02.003. Fahad, S., Hussain, S., Chauhan, B.S., Saud, S., Wu, C., Hassan, fertilisers and growth regulators, at indicated rates, S. and Huang, J. (2015). Weed growth and crop yield loss offered optimal weed reduction (96%) and increased in wheat as influenced by row spacing and weed emergence grain yield by 3 t/ha. Moskovskaya 40, Nemchinov- times. Crop Protection, 71, 101 – 108. DOI:10.1016/j.cro- pro.2015.02.005. ka 17 and Nemchinovka 85 expressed high compet- Fragasso, M., Iannucci, A. and Papa, R. (2013). Durum wheat itive ability. Thus, the obtained results in our study and allelopathy: Toward wheat breeding for natural weed management. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4, Article 375. indicated that balanced fertilisation and rational use DOI:10.3389/fpls.2013.00375. of herbicides could be used as an effective method Gaba, S., Gabriel, E., Chadœuf, J., Bonneu, F. and Bretagnolle, to suppress weeds, which allows not only mainte- V. (2016). Herbicides do not ensure for higher wheat yield, but eliminate rare plant species. Scientific Reports, 6(1), nance of a stable crop yield but also greatly reduce 30112. DOI:10.1038/srep30112. weed reproduction. The current results open real Gharde, Y., Singh, P. K., Dubey, R.P. and Gupta, P.K. (2018). Assessment of yield and economic losses in agricul- opportunities for large-scale performing the cultiva- ture due to weeds in India. Crop Protection, 107, 12 – 18. tion technologies in different regions of Russia and DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2018.01.007. exhibited new varieties that could offer high perfor- Heap, I. M. (2018). International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds [Online]. Available at: www.weedscience.org. mance and weed-crop competitive ability. Hosseini, P., Karimi, H., Babaei, S., Mashhadi, H.R. and Ovei- si, M. (2014). Weed seed bank as affected by crop rotation and disturbance. Crop Protection, 64, 1 – 6. DOI:10.1016/j. a cknowledgements: This paper has been sup- cropro.2014.05.022. ported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Ibrahim, H., Pansu, M., Blavet, D., Hatira, A., Mcdonald, Leadership Program. P., Bernoux, M. and Drevon, J.J. (2016). Modelling the continuous exchange of carbon between living organisms, the soil and the atmosphere. Plant and Soil, 398(1 – 2), Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no 381 – 397. DOI:10.1007/s11104-015-2665-4. Kjeldahl, J. (1883). A new method for the determination of ni- conflict of interest. trogen in organic matter. Zeitschrift für Analytische Chemie, 22, 366 – 382. DOI:10.1007/BF01338151. Latati, M., Dokukin, P., Aouiche, A., Rebouh, N.Y., Takouachet, R., Hafnaoui, E. and Ounane, S.M. (2019). Species interac- REFERENCES tions improve above-ground biomass and land use efficien- cy in intercropped wheat and chickpea under low soil inputs. Andrew, I.K.S., Storkey, J. and Sparkes, D.L. (2015). A re- Agronomy, 9(11), 765. DOI:10.3390/agronomy9110765. view of the potential for competitive cereal cultivars as a Maclaren, C.V., Labuschagne, J. and Swanepoel, P.A. (2021). tool in integrated weed management. Weed Research, 55, Tillage practices affect weeds differently in monoculture 239 – 248. DOI:10.1111/wre.12137. vs. crop rotation. Soil and Tillage Research, 205, 104795. Baghestani, M.A., Zand, E., Soufizadeh, S., Bagherani, N. and 85 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 DOI:10.1016/j.still.2020.104795. Rebouh, N.Y., Latati, M., Polityko, P., Kucher, D., Hezla, L., Mahn, E.G. (1988). Changes in the structure of weed commu- Norezzine, A. and Iguer-Ouada, M. (2020). Influence of nities affected by agro-chemicals: what role does nitrogen three cultivation technologies to control Fusarium spp. play? In Eijsackers, H. and Quispel, A. (Eds.) In the series in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production under analytic: Ecological implications of contemporary agricul- Moscow conditions. Research on Crops, 21(1), 17 – 25. ture: Proceedings of a Symposium, held Sept 7 – 12, Wa- DOI:10.31830/2348-7542.2020.003. geningen, Netherlands. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/ Rebouh, N.Y., Polityko, P.M., Pakina, E., Plushikov, V.G., stable/20112994 [Accessed 2 Fev. 2020]. Norezzine, A. , Gadzhikurbanov, A. and Iguer-Ouada, M. Mason, H ., Navabi, A., Frick, B., O’Donovan, J. and Spaner, D. (2019). Impact of three integrated crop protection treat- (2007). Cultivar and seeding rate effects on the competitive ments on the varieties of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum ability of spring cereals grown under organic production in L.) in Moscow area, Russia. Research on Crops, 20(1), Northern Canada. Agronomy Journal, 99(5), 1199 – 1207. 161 – 168. DOI:10.31830/2348-7542.2019.022. DOI:10.2134/agronj2006.0262. Rebukh, N.Y., Polityko, P.M., Kapranov, V.N. and Kiselev, E.F. Messaoudi, H., Gérard, F., Dokukin, P., Djamai, H., Rebouh, (2019). Nutrient removal and payback of mineral fertilizers Y.N. and Latati, M. (2020). Effects of intercropping on by harvest of winter wheat varieties under technologies of field-scale phosphorus acquisition processes in a calcareous different intensity levels. RUDN Journal of Agronomy and soil. Plant and Soil, 449, 331 – 341. DOI:10.1007/s11104- Animal Industries, 14(2), 142 – 153. DOI:10.22363/2312- 020-04491-7. 797X-2019-14-2-142-153. Mishra, J.S. and Singh, V.P. (2012). Tillage and weed control Storkey, J., Cussans, J.W., Lutman, P.J.W. and Blair, A.M. effects on productivity of a dry seeded rice-wheat system on (2003). The combination of a simulation and an empir- a Vertisol in Central India. Soil and Tillage Research, 123, ical model of crop/weed competition to estimate yield 11 – 20. DOI:10.1016/J.STILL.2012.02.003. loss from Alopecurus myosuroides in winter wheat. Field Murphy, C.E. and Lemerle, D. (2006). Continuous cropping Crop Research, 84(3), 291 – 301. DOI:10.1016/S0378- systems and weed selection. Euphytica, 148, 61 – 73. DOI: 4290(03)00096-0. 10.1007/s10681-006-5941-9. Tang, L., Cheng, C., Wan, K., Li, R., Wang, D., Tao, Y. and Nakka, S., Jugulam, M., Peterson, D. and Asif, M. (2019). Her- Chen, F. (2014). Impact of fertilizing pattern on the bio- bicide resistance: Development of wheat production sys- diversity of a weed community and wheat growth. PLoS tems and current status of resistant weeds in wheat cropping ONE, 9(1): e84370. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084370. systems. The Crop Journal, 7(6), 750 – 760. DOI:10.1016/j. Mohammadi, H. and Ismail, B.S. (2018). Effect of herbicides cj.2019.09.004. on the density of broad leaf weeds and their effect on the Nazarko, O.M., Van Acker, R.C. and Entz, M.H. (2005). Strat- growth and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum egies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops L.). Journal of Agronomy, 17(1), 11 – 17. DOI:10.3923/ in Canada: A review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, ja.2018.11.17. 85(2), 457 – 479. DOI:10.4141/P04-158. Weis, M., Gutjahr, C., Ayala, V.R., Gerhards, R., Ritter, Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R. and Govaerts, B. (2015). C., Schölderle, F. Precision farming for weed manage- Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A ment: techniques. Gesunde Pflanzen, 60(4), 171 – 181. review. Field Crops Research, 183, 56 – 68. DOI:10.1016/j. DOI:10.1007/s10343-008-0195-1. fcr.2015.07.012. Van Der Meulen, A. and Chauhan, B.S. (2017). A review of Pansu, M., Ibrahim, H., Hatira, A., Brahim, N., Drevon, J.J., weed management in wheat using crop competition. Crop Harmand, J.M. and Blavet, D. (2018). Modelling the conti- Protection, 95, 38 – 44. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2016.08.004. nuous exchange of nitrogen between microbial decom- Vila-Aiub, M.M. (2019). Fitness of herbicide-resistant weeds: posers, the organs and symbionts of plants, soil reserves Current knowledge and implications for management. and the atmosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 125, Plants, 8(11), 469. DOI:10.3390/plants8110469. 185 – 196. DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.06.011 . Talgre, L., Lauringson, E. and Koppel, M. (2008). Effect of Polityko, P., Rebouh, N.Y., Kucher, D., Vvedenskiy, V., Kapran- reduced herbicide dosages on weed infestation in spring ov, V., Atmachian, G. and Latati, M. (2020). Productivity barley. Zemdirbyste, 95(3), 194 – 201. and grain quality of three spring wheat (Triticum aestivum Received: February 9, 2021 l.) cultivars under three cultivation technologies. EurAsian Accepted: May 27, 2021 Journal of BioSciences, 14(1), 2089 – 2095. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agriculture de Gruyter

Improvement of Weeds Management System and Fertilisers Application in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivation Technologies

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/improvement-of-weeds-management-system-and-fertilisers-application-in-5GP9l31yRy
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2021 Nazih Yacer Rebouh et al., published by Sciendo
ISSN
1338-4376
eISSN
1338-4376
DOI
10.2478/agri-2021-0007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 DOI: 10.2478/agri-2021-0007 Original paper Improvement of weeds management system and fert Il Is ers appl Ica t Ion In w Inter whea t (Tri Ticum aes Tivum l .) tcul Iv ta Ion technolog Ies 1, 2 3 1 NAZIH YACER REBOUH *, MORAD LATATI , PETER POLITYKO , ZARGAR MEISAM , 1 3 1 1 NYASHA JOHN KAVHIZA , NINA GARMASCH , ELENA PAKINA , MARINA LYSHKO , 1 1 1 ALBERT ENGERIBO , ELCHIN ORUJOV AND VALENTIN VVEDENSKIY Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation Laboratoire d’Amélioration Intégrative des Productions Végétales, Algiers, Algeria GNU Moscow Research Institute of Agriculture “Nemchinovka”, Russia Rebouh, N.Y., Latati, M., Polityko, P., Meisam, Z., Kavhiza, N.J., Garmasch, N., Pakina, E., Lyshko, M., Engeribo, A., Orujov, E. and Vvedenskiy, V. (2021). Improvement of weeds management system and fertilisers application in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivation technologies. Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67(2), 76 – 86. Wheat production plays a central role in the Russian agricultural system and significant land area is dedicated to this strategic crop. However, the wheat enterprise is highly constrained by weed interference which cause serious yield losses hence minimizing production income. The main objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of three various cultivation technologies as basic, intensive, and highly intensive systems on wheat biological efficiency. Three weed species Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media, and Viola arvensis, and three winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties Moscovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3) were studied. The data was analysed as a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Weed density, biological efficiency, yield performances, and selected qualitative parameters (measured through protein and gluten contents) were determined as affected by different cultivation technologies. The results showed that the high intensive cultivation technology (T3) was the most effective in reducing weed infestation levels as 2 2 2 follows (0.3 plant/m Echinochloa crus-galli, 0.5 plant/m Stellaria media and 0.4 plant/m Viola arvensis) with biological efficiency of 96%, while 81% and 90% were recorded with basic and intensive cultivation system respectively. Moreover, the highest wheat yield 10.6 t/ha was obtained by T3, with the greatest grain quality 5% higher than basic cultivation technology designated in T1. The results were variety-dependent revealing the intrinsic genetic performances and the different patterns of high competitive ability. The current results open real opportunities concerning the implementation of potent wheat production systems. Key words: gluten content, herbicide, proteins content, weed, wheat varieties, yield Chemical method plays a key role in controlling resistance particularly in major field crops (wheat, weeds that infest wheat fields. Herbicides are the rice, maize, soybean), has become a widespread most effective weed control tools developed recent- problem posing a formidable challenge for global ly in all over the world, suppressing 90 – 99% of food production systems (Beckie et al. 2000; Ibra- weeds (Talgre et al. 2008). Nevertheless, herbicide him et al. 2016; Pansu et al. 2018). Currently many Rebouh Nazih Yacer, PhD. (*Corresponding author), Meisam Zargar, Kavhiza Nyasha John, PhD. student, Pakina Elena, PhD., Lyshko Marina, PhD., Engeribo Albert, Orujov Elchin, PhD. student, Vvedenskiy Valentin, Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation. E-mail: n.yacer16@outlook.fr Latati Morad, PhD., Laboratoire d’Amélioration Intégrative des Productions Végétales (C2711100), Département de Produc- tions égétales, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique (ENSA), Avenue Hassane Badi, El Harrach, Algiers 16200, Algeria Polityko Petr, prof., Garmasch Nina, PhD., GNU Moscow Research Institute of Agriculture “Nemchinovka”, Russia © 2021 Authors. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonComercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 76 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 weed species are developing resistance to herbi- to new management techniques (Vila-Aiub et al. cides from different modes of action, and becom- 2019). Almost, direct yield losses due to weed in- ing more difficult and expensive to be controlled. festations are ranged 20 – 40% in the global wheat Several studies in the recent years revealed that con- production (Fahad et al. 2015; Gharde et al. 2018). tinued use of herbicides with the same mode of ac- For mentioned reasons, cropping systems need new tion (MOA) applies selection pressure on the weed management strategies, including cultural practices population, this increases the genotype frequency and genetic engineering technique (development of of resistant individuals that eventually becomes the new varieties) to suppress weed growth and spread dominant component of the population (Moham- that cause wheat yield losses. The optimization of madi et al. 2018). As a solution, chemical manage- weed management systems, therefore, is becoming ment strategies such as rotating active ingredients indispensable in wheat production systems to ensure with the different MOAs and combining (tank mix) high yields and better grain quality. herbicides from the various chemical families have A three year study was carried out to investigate been established to evade herbicide resistance. The the effectiveness of three cultivation technologies selection of such herbicides should be based on bio- included fertilisers, herbicides, and growth regula- logical knowledge of all dominant weed species in tors in different combinations and doses to control the field, while maintaining a balance between her - weeds in order to estimate their influence on winter bicide costs, weed thresholds, and environmental wheat yield and grain quality. impacts (Nazarko et al. 2005; Chhokar et al. 2012). In addition to the chemical methods, other con- MATERIAL AND METHODS trol practices were developed to control weeds in farming systems. For example, increasing weed- Experimental site crop competition, through the development of crop Experiments were conducted over three wheat varieties with the high competitive ability can be il- growing seasons (2016 – 2017, 2017 – 2018, and lustrated. Previous studies reported that some crop 2018 – 2019) at the Moscow Research Institute of genotypes had a high competitive ability against Agriculture “Nemchinovka”, Odintsovo district, weeds (Mason et al. 2007; Fragasso et al. 2013). Russia (55° 45′ N, 37°37′ E and 200 m altitude). Hence, De Vita et al. (2017) investigated the ef- fects of inter-row spacing as a cultural method on Climatic conditions wheat competition against weeds. Mentioned study The climate in the Moscow region was mid-con- demonstrated that competitive ability directly de- tinental characterized by mild winter, occasional pends on the wheat cultivars, thus, crop rotation flaw, and warm damp summer. The mean annual was perfumed to control weed populations. It has temperature was 6.3°C. The average temperature of been reported that crop rotation reduces growth, fe- the warm-season (May-October) was 13.5°C; the av- cundity, and weed establishment by disrupting their erage monthly temperature in January and July was life cycle (Nichols et al. 2015). Furthermore, it was –8.40°C and 18.10°C, respectively. Positive ambi- observed that monoculture or continuous cropping ent temperatures are experienced for an average of within a field increases weeds density, whereas 215 days. Moreover, temperatures above 10°C (veg- breaks in the cropping sequence with other crops of- etation season) occur for an average of 130 days. ten significantly diminish weeds interference (Hos- The average cool season (November-March) tem- seini et al. 2014). perature was –5.70°C. Mean annual precipitation Crop production for the purpose of human con- was 628 mm: 56% in the spring-summer season and sumption such as wheat is of paramount impor- 26% in autumn. The average precipitation rate from tance worldwide (Polityko et al. 2020). Weeds are May to September was 339 mm. one of the major constraints causing serious losses in wheat yields and quality (Van der Meulen et al. Weed density estimation 2017). Moreover, weed communities possess high Weeds were investigated in three to five leaves phonological plasticity which enables them to adapt stage of winter wheat. The dominant weed species 77 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 during three years of the experiment were: Viola ar- Sowing was done at the beginning of September vensis, Stellaria media and Echinochloa crus-galli. with a planter (seeder SN 16 PM) at a rate of 5 mil- These species typically germinate in autumn and lion seeds/ha. spring in the condition of Moscow region. The weed A modern combine harvester was used to harvest density was calculated manually before treatments wheat (Polityko et al. 2020). The wheat was har- and after treatments (28 days after treatments). The vested around the mid-August at ripening stage. weed density was expressed as number of plant/m² The crop rotation implemented in the experimen- in each plot according to the cultivation technology. tal field was as legumes, spring cereals and winter The total area of the experimental field was 700 m . cereals. Particularly, the crop that preceded the win- The total area was sub-divided into three blocks; ter wheat investigated in the study was peas. each block was further subdivided into nine plots Tillage operations were done before each grow- in which the total area of each plot was 25 m . The ing season after harvesting the predecessor crop, experiment was performed in three replications for with a ploughing depth of 20 – 22 cm. each treatment. Biological efficiency Experimental design and treatments The biological efficiency effectuated by the cul- For three years of the study, the experiments were tivation technologies was calculated manually 28 laid out as Randomized Complete Block Design days after treatment and before harvest of winter with three replications. Three cultivation technolo- wheat. Weed density was investigated and calculat- gies [basic (T1), intensive (T2) and high intensive ed as number of plant/m² in each experimental plot, (T3)] were examined as the main plots whilst wheat according to the cultivation technologies applied, varieties [Moscovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya using the following formula (Polityko et al. 2020): 17 (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3)] were as sub- plots. BE [%] = 100 ‒ (Nbr.a × 100 / Nbr.b) (1) A description of experimental inputs for all three cultivation technologies is presented in Table 1. The BE ‒ biological efficiency [%]; Nbr.a ‒ number of herbicides were applied to wheat seedlings at the plant/m², after treatment; Nbr.b ‒ number of plant/m², three-five leaves stage. The fertilisation was carried before treatment; 100 ‒ conversion coefficient [%]. out in pre-sowing with top dressing, at the tillering and earing stages. T a b l e 1 Applied herbicide and fertilisers in different cultivation technologies Cultivation technologies Fertilisers [kg/ha] Crop protection details Basal application N (30), P O (30), K О (90) [kg/ha] 2 5 2 1. Basic (T1) • Herbicide: Lintur 180 [g/ha] in pre-sowing and N (30) [kg/ha] at the tillering phase Basal application N (60), P O (60), K О (120) [kg/ha] 2 5 2 • Herbicide: Accurate Extra 25 [g/ha] 2. Intensive (T2) in pre-sowing, Top dressing, at the tillering phase, • Growth regulator: Sapress 0.3 [L/ha] N (30) [kg/ha] • Herbicide: Accurate Extra 35 [g/ha] + Basal application N (90), P O (90), K О (150) [kg/ha] 2 5 2 Tandem 25 [g/ha] 3. High Intensive (T3) in pre-sowing, Top dressing, at the tillering and earing phases, N (30) and N (30) [kg/ha], respectively • Growth regulator: Sapress 0.3 [L/ha] 78 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 Determination of protein and gluten content Statistical analysis Data analysis was performed using Statview Selected qualitative parameters (determined via 4.02 software (Abacus Concepts Inc., Berkeley, CA, protein and gluten content) were measured for all USA). Values for each variable were expressed as winter wheat varieties. the mean ± SEM (Standard Error of Mean). Vari- The percentage of protein content was analysed ables used for comparison purposes were the three by calculating the total nitrogen concentration in weed species abundance as influenced by the three grain using the Kjeldahl method (Kjeldahl 1883), cultivation technologies: Basic (T1), Intensive (T2), the following formula was used: and High Intensive (T3). Differences between treat- ments (wheat yield, gluten content, and proteins Protein [%] = [(N ×100) / (100 – W)] × K (2) content) were assessed using Analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a signifi cance of p-value˂0.05, and N ‒ the nitrogen content in the grain [%]; W ‒ the Tukey’s test was used for mean comparisons in each moisture content of the grain or its processed prod- treatment that was significant. Linear regression was ucts [%]; K ‒ conversion coefficient of nitrogen used to evaluate the relationship between biological content to protein, equal to: 5.7 for wheat. efficiency of cultivation technologies, wheat yield and grain quality. The gluten content in wheat grain was calculated by hand washing method (Polityko et al. 2020). The amount of raw or dry gluten in the grain %, calcu- RESULTS lated to the first decimal place, for dry-to the second decimal place by the following formula: Weed infestation Figure 1 shows weed infestation of the three Gluten [%] = MG / Mg × 100 (3) winter wheat species after treatments. Weed infesta- tion levels were highest before treatment application MG ‒ the number of raw or dry gluten [g]; Mg ‒ as Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media and Viola the number of the sample of ground grain [g]; arvensis 30, 18 and 16 plant/m , respectively. How- 100 ‒ conversion coefficient [%]. ever, after treatment, a significant weed reduction Figure 1. Influence of the cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) on weed infestation levels of the three studied species 79 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 T a b l e 2 Grain yield and quality variation of each wheat varieties under different studied cultivation technology Cultivation Varieties Year Yield Protein Gluten technology b c c 2017 9.5 ± 0.23 14.1 ± 0.05 30.4 ± 0.11 d b b Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1) 2018 5.2 ± 0.05 16.4 ± 0.05 32.8 ± 0.08 bc b b 2019 7.8 ± 0.20 16.1 ± 0.05 32.2 ± 0.10 ab c c 2017 9.7 ± 0.11 14.2 ± 0.11 28.3 ± 0.15 c c c Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2) 2018 6.4 ± 0.05 14.5 ± 0.05 29.1 ± 0.11 T1 – basic c b c 2019 7.4 ± 0.03 16.9 ± 0.11 33.8 ± 0.10 b c c 2017 9.9 ± 0.28 14.8 ± 0.05 31.2 ± 0.05 c c c Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) 2018 7.1 ± 0.06 15.1 ± 0.05 30.2 ± 0.10 c b ab 2019 7.4 ± 0.03 17.6 ± 0.11 35.2 ± 0.15 ab b c 2017 10.5 ± 0.24 15.4 ± 0.05 31.5 ± 0.05 b b ab Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1) 2018 8.4 ± 0.11 17.7 ± 0.05 36.7 ± 0.15 b ab a 2019 8.2 ± 0.10 19.1 ± 0.05 38.2 ± 0.15 ab b b 2017 10.4 ± 0.23 15.6 ± 0.10 33.2 ± 0.08 c b b T2 – intensive Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2) 2018 7.1 ± 0.14 16.1 ± 0.05 32.2 ± 0.15 bc b a 2019 7.9 ± 0.11 17.8 ± 0.11 37.6 ± 0.15 a b b 2017 13.1 ± 0.17 15.6 ± 0.05 32.5 ± 0.05 c b b Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) 2018 7.3 ± 0.05 16.4 ± 0.05 32.8 ± 0.10 b ab a 2019 8.3 ± 0.05 18.9 ± 0.11 37.2 ± 0.15 ab b 2017 14.1 ± 0.17 15.5 ± 0.05 33.4 ± 0.20 b ab ab Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1) 2018 9.03 ± 0.17 18.3 ± 0.05 36.6 ± 0.10 b a a 2019 8.7 ± 0.1 19.6 ± 0.11 39.2 ± 0.10 a b ab 2017 13.3 ± 0.17 16.8 ± 0.05 35.1 ± 0.05 T3 – high b b b Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2) 2018 8.2 ± 0.11 16.9 ± 0.17 33.4 ± 0.08 intensive a ab a 2019 8.03 ± 0.14 18.9 ± 0.05 39.8 ± 0.05 a b b 2017 13.3 ± 0.16 16.5 ± 0.05 33.9 ± 0.10 c b b Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) 2018 7.6 ± 0.11b 16.8 ± 0.05 33.6 ± 0.10 b ab a 2019 8.7 ± 0.05 19.4 ± 0.11 39.8 ± 0.05 Cultivation technology ≤0.002 ≤0.002 ≤0.002 Variety ≤0.003 ≤0.002 ≤0.003 Year ≤0.002 ≤0.004 ≤0.002 p-value Cultivation technology × Variety ≤0.002 ≤0.003 ≤0.005 Cultivation technology × Year ≤0.006 ≤0.005 ≤0.004 Variety × Year ≤0.003 ≤0.007 ≤0.006 Cultivation technology ×Variety × Year ≤0.004 ≤0.005 ≤0.008 Values represent the average of 3 replicates ± SE (standard errors), p-values from ANOVA (cultivation technology, variety, year, cultivation technology × variety, cultivation technology × year, variety × year and cultivation technology × variety × year). Different letters in column indicate significant difference between means and they were determined by Tukey test 80 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 value was observed for all three species. High in- 2018, and 2019). Cultivation technology (T3, high tensive cultivation technology T3 determined as the intensive) was the most effective in controlling most effective treatment in weed control, attaining weeds during the trial, since the weed density de- 2 2 0.3 plant/m Echinochloa crus-galli, 0.5 plant/m creased over the years as shown by the following 2 2 2 Stellaria media and 0.4 plant/m in Viola arvensis. values 0.6 plant/m ± 0.02, 0.3 plant/m ± 0.02, and Cultivation technologies 1 and 2 also showed high 0.2 plant/m ± 0.01 in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respec- efficacy in reducing weed densities, since the weed tively. control was ranged 75 ‒ 80% and 85 ‒ 93%, respec- The biological efficiency of the investigated tively. cultivation technologies is shown in Figure 3. The Figure 2 exhibits the effects of the three applied highest biological efficiency was obtained when cultivation technologies during the study (2017, cultivation technologies 2 and 3 were used with Figure 2. Effect of the three cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) on biological efficiency during the study period (2017, 2018 and 2019) Figure 3. The biological efficiency of the investigated cultivation technologies to control weed (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) 81 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 90% and 96%, respectively. The cultivation tech- (T3) gave the best yields whatever the considered nology 1 also seems to be effective in suppressing wheat variety. It is noted that there was no signif- weeds, since 87, 81, and 88% weed biomass was icant difference in the yield potential of all studied reduced in Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media, varieties. Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1), Nemchi- and Viola arvensis, respectively. novskaya 17 variety (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3) yielded 10.6 ± 0.14 t/ha, 9.8 ± 0.39 Yield performance and grain quality t/ha and 9.9 ± 0.21 t/ha respectively throughout the Figure 4 displays yield performances of the three study. On the other hand, the lowest yield was re- winter wheat varieties attributed to the cultivation corded when the basic cultivation technology was technologies. High intensive cultivation technology Figure 4. Yield performances of the three studied winter wheat varieties (Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2), and Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3)) as influenced by the cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) Figure 5. Protein and gluten contents of the three studied winter wheat varieties (Moscovskaya 40 variety (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 variety (V2), and Nemchinovskaya 85 variety (V3)) attributed to the cultivation technologies (T1 – basic, T2 – intensive and T3 – high intensive) 82 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 implemented (T1) in all wheat varieties 7.5 ± 0.45 Figure 6 shows the relationship between biolog- (V1), 7.8 ± 0.29 (V2) and 8.1 ± 0.27 t/ha (V3). ical efficiency of treatments, wheat yield, and grain Grain quality was analysed based on protein and quality by using linear regression. The biological gluten contents in the different wheat varieties. The efficiency of cultivation technologies is not correlat - results showed that the protein and gluten content = 0.05, however protein and ed with grain yield r increased significantly by intensity of cultivation gluten contents enhance with increasing biological 2 2 technologies (Figure 5). The highest protein and efficiency of treatments r = 0.50 and r = 0.52, re- gluten content were observed when the high inten- spectively. sive cultivation technology was performed (T3) for all tested varieties in the values 17.8% ± 0.30 (V1), 17.5% ± 0.32 (V2) and 17.6% ± 0.42 (V3) for protein DISCUSSION content and 36.4% ± 0.90 (V1), 36.1% ± 0.59 (V2) and 36.7% ± 0.63 (V3) for gluten content. Weeds are a serious challenge in wheat produc- In Table 2, the analysis of variance for grain tion. They generate colossal yield losses through the yield and quality (protein and gluten content) re- competition for nutrients with crops. An effective vealed that the cultivation technology, variety, and weed management system in modern agriculture year had a highly significant effect on the yield and is indispensable for the achievement of high grain yield. Here we demonstrate the practicability of var- grain quality (p ≤ 0.05). In addition, the yield and ied levels of cultivation technologies in enhancing grain quality were significantly affected by the in- crop competitive ability against the weeds, hence, teraction between all studied treatments (cultivation minimizing crop losses and simultaneously aug- technology × variety, cultivation technology × year, menting grain quality. Precursory studies evaluating variety × year, and cultivation technology × variety the effect of herbicides and fertilisers in controlling × year) (p ≤ 0.05). Figure 6. The relationship between biological efficiency of cultivation technologies, wheat grain yield, protein and gluten contents 83 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 weeds have illustrated that compliance with the doses chinovskaya 85) seem to have the high competitive of inputs and timely application improve wheat ability, which resulted in reduced weed pressure and yield and grain quality (Latati et al. 2019; Rebouh diffusion in the cropping system. These results cor- et al. 2019). roborate the findings of a great deal of the previous Herbicides have become one of the most used works, which demonstrated the importance of the methods for weed control. The present study was competitive ability of the cultivated genotypes in designed to determine the effect of three cultivation weed management (Bastiaans et al. 2008; Andrew technologies, which also embraced the use of herbi- et al. 2015). cides to control weeds in the winter wheat crop. The Weed resistance to herbicides is increasingly results showed that the studied cultivation technol- becoming problematic in crop production systems ogies had favorable biological efficiency to control across the globe. The repeated use of herbicides Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media and Viola with the same mode of action ultimately leads to the arvensis. The high intensive cultivation technolo- rapid spread of the resistant genotypes in the weed gy was the most effective among all experimental population (Heap et al. 2018; Nakka et al. 2019). treatments, since 87, 81 and 88% efficiency was ob- The established spatio-temporal analysis to study tained for Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria media the effect of cultivation technologies on weed spe- and Viola arvensis suppression, respectively. This cies abundance carried out over three years of trials was likely due to the presence of florasulam and (Figure 2) showed that the investigated cultivation tribenuron-methyl belonging to triazolopyrimidine technologies reduced weeds infestation levels over class, which impedes the biosynthesis of branched- the years. This is probably due to the combined ef- chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine and valine) fect of crop rotation and tillage before the sowing by inhibiting the enzyme ALS also known as AHAS season, which optimized the efficacy of herbicides in (Weis et al. 2008). weed control. These results were in consistent with Baghestani et al. (2007) and Zand et al. (2010) the findings reported by Mishra and Singh (2012), reported that florasulam and tribenuron-methyl were whereby tillage followed by herbicide application very effective for the management of Echinochloa increased biological efficiency and reduced the crus-galli, Stellaria media and Viola arvensis, their chances of the weeds developing resistance to ap- findings are in agreement with those reported in the plied herbicides. Messaoudi et al. (2020) and Mac- current study. High intensive cultivation technology Laren et al. (2021) also noticed that the combined including florasulam and tribenuron-methyl (Tan- tillage-crop rotation provides better weed control re- dem), belonging to triazolopyrimidine, significantly sults than tillage-monoculture combination, which 2 2 , 1.9 plant/m and reduced weed density 1.8 plant/m leads us to conclude that weed management de- 1.2 plant/m for Echinochloa crus-galli, Stellaria pends on several factors that constitute cultivation media and Viola arvensis, respectively. technology such as herbicide, crop rotation, tillage, Murphy and Lemerle (2006) have shown that the fertilisation, genetic characteristics of cultivars and type and rate of fertilisers used play an important others. role in weed population shifts and an inappropriate Previous studies demonstrated that herbicide dose of fertilisers significantly affects the abundance use generally does not affect wheat yields, but in- of weeds in crops. For example, the number of weed creases grain quality of crops (Storkey et al. 2003; individuals decreases and their biomass increases Benjamin et al. 2010; Gaba et al. 2016). This study with enhancing nitrogen fertiliser levels (Mahn et was premised on assessing the efficacy of the her - al. 1988; Tang et al. 2014). bicides both in weed control and enhancement of In the current study, the implemented fertiliser wheat yield and the grain quality. The analyses of rates [N (60 – 150), P O (30 – 90), K О (90 – 150)] the relationship between biological efficiency of 2 5 2 were balanced which promoted wheat crop growth, treatments, wheat yield and grain quality by using resulting in closed crop stands and limited light the linear regression did not show any relationship for weed communities. In addition, winter wheats = 0.05), between wheat yields and herbicide use (r (Moskovskaya 40, Nemchinovskaya 17 and Nem- however, there is a moderately positive relationship 84 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 −86 Deihimfard, R. (2007). Weed control and wheat (Triticum between protein, gluten content, and biological effi- aestivum L.) yield under application of 2,4-D plus carfen- 2 2 ciency of herbicide r = 0.50, r = 0.52, respectively trazone-ethyl and florasulam plus flumetsulam: Evalua - (Figure 6). This is probably due to the competitive tion of the efficacy. Crop Protection, 26(12), 1759 – 1764. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2007.03.007. ability of the cultivated genotypes, which increas- Bastiaans, L., Paolini, R. and Baumann, D.T. (2008). Focus on es their nutrient uptake rate, thus improving grain ecological weed management: What is hindering adoption? Weed Research, 48(6), 481 – 491. DOI:10.1111/j.1365- quality (Van der Meulen et al. 2017; Polityko et al. 3180.2008.00662.x 2020). Moreover, our findings from the previous Beckie, H.J., Heap, I.M., Smeda, R.J. and Hall, L.M. (2000). study where we explored the nutrient use efficien- Screening for herbicide resistance in weeds 1. Weed Technology, 14(2), 428 – 445. DOI:10.1614/0890-03 cy of the winter wheat cultivars investigated in the 7X(2000)014[0428:SFHRIW]2.0.CO;2. current work exhibited that Moskovskaya 40, Nem- Benjamin, L.R., Milne, A.E., Parsons, D.J. and Lutman, P.J.W. (2010). A model to simulate yield losses in winter wheat chinovskaya 17 and Nemchinovskaya 85 had high caused by weeds, for use in a weed management decision nutrient uptake capacity (Rebukh et al. 2019). support system. Crop Protection, 29(11), 1264 – 1273. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2010.07.015. Chhokar, R.S., Sharma, R.K. and Sharma, I. (2012). Weed man- agement strategies in wheat-A review. Journal of Wheat Re- CONCLUSIONS search [online], 4(2), 1 – 21. Available at: https://sawbar.in/ wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Weed-managment-stratergies- in-wheat-A-review.pdf [Accessed 22 Sep. 2020]. Weeds are one of the major constraints in crop De Vita, P., Colecchia, S.A., Pecorella, I. and Saia, S. (2017). yields and quality, causing huge economic losses. Reduced inter-row distance improves yield and competi- tion against weeds in a semi-dwarf durum wheat variety. The present study showed that the weed manage- European Journal of Agronomy, 85, 69 – 77. DOI:10.1016/j. ment systems by the using several factors including eja.2017.02.003. Fahad, S., Hussain, S., Chauhan, B.S., Saud, S., Wu, C., Hassan, fertilisers and growth regulators, at indicated rates, S. and Huang, J. (2015). Weed growth and crop yield loss offered optimal weed reduction (96%) and increased in wheat as influenced by row spacing and weed emergence grain yield by 3 t/ha. Moskovskaya 40, Nemchinov- times. Crop Protection, 71, 101 – 108. DOI:10.1016/j.cro- pro.2015.02.005. ka 17 and Nemchinovka 85 expressed high compet- Fragasso, M., Iannucci, A. and Papa, R. (2013). Durum wheat itive ability. Thus, the obtained results in our study and allelopathy: Toward wheat breeding for natural weed management. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4, Article 375. indicated that balanced fertilisation and rational use DOI:10.3389/fpls.2013.00375. of herbicides could be used as an effective method Gaba, S., Gabriel, E., Chadœuf, J., Bonneu, F. and Bretagnolle, to suppress weeds, which allows not only mainte- V. (2016). Herbicides do not ensure for higher wheat yield, but eliminate rare plant species. Scientific Reports, 6(1), nance of a stable crop yield but also greatly reduce 30112. DOI:10.1038/srep30112. weed reproduction. The current results open real Gharde, Y., Singh, P. K., Dubey, R.P. and Gupta, P.K. (2018). Assessment of yield and economic losses in agricul- opportunities for large-scale performing the cultiva- ture due to weeds in India. Crop Protection, 107, 12 – 18. tion technologies in different regions of Russia and DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2018.01.007. exhibited new varieties that could offer high perfor- Heap, I. M. (2018). International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds [Online]. Available at: www.weedscience.org. mance and weed-crop competitive ability. Hosseini, P., Karimi, H., Babaei, S., Mashhadi, H.R. and Ovei- si, M. (2014). Weed seed bank as affected by crop rotation and disturbance. Crop Protection, 64, 1 – 6. DOI:10.1016/j. a cknowledgements: This paper has been sup- cropro.2014.05.022. ported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Ibrahim, H., Pansu, M., Blavet, D., Hatira, A., Mcdonald, Leadership Program. P., Bernoux, M. and Drevon, J.J. (2016). Modelling the continuous exchange of carbon between living organisms, the soil and the atmosphere. Plant and Soil, 398(1 – 2), Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no 381 – 397. DOI:10.1007/s11104-015-2665-4. Kjeldahl, J. (1883). A new method for the determination of ni- conflict of interest. trogen in organic matter. Zeitschrift für Analytische Chemie, 22, 366 – 382. DOI:10.1007/BF01338151. Latati, M., Dokukin, P., Aouiche, A., Rebouh, N.Y., Takouachet, R., Hafnaoui, E. and Ounane, S.M. (2019). Species interac- REFERENCES tions improve above-ground biomass and land use efficien- cy in intercropped wheat and chickpea under low soil inputs. Andrew, I.K.S., Storkey, J. and Sparkes, D.L. (2015). A re- Agronomy, 9(11), 765. DOI:10.3390/agronomy9110765. view of the potential for competitive cereal cultivars as a Maclaren, C.V., Labuschagne, J. and Swanepoel, P.A. (2021). tool in integrated weed management. Weed Research, 55, Tillage practices affect weeds differently in monoculture 239 – 248. DOI:10.1111/wre.12137. vs. crop rotation. Soil and Tillage Research, 205, 104795. Baghestani, M.A., Zand, E., Soufizadeh, S., Bagherani, N. and 85 Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 67, 2021 (2): 76 − 86 DOI:10.1016/j.still.2020.104795. Rebouh, N.Y., Latati, M., Polityko, P., Kucher, D., Hezla, L., Mahn, E.G. (1988). Changes in the structure of weed commu- Norezzine, A. and Iguer-Ouada, M. (2020). Influence of nities affected by agro-chemicals: what role does nitrogen three cultivation technologies to control Fusarium spp. play? In Eijsackers, H. and Quispel, A. (Eds.) In the series in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production under analytic: Ecological implications of contemporary agricul- Moscow conditions. Research on Crops, 21(1), 17 – 25. ture: Proceedings of a Symposium, held Sept 7 – 12, Wa- DOI:10.31830/2348-7542.2020.003. geningen, Netherlands. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/ Rebouh, N.Y., Polityko, P.M., Pakina, E., Plushikov, V.G., stable/20112994 [Accessed 2 Fev. 2020]. Norezzine, A. , Gadzhikurbanov, A. and Iguer-Ouada, M. Mason, H ., Navabi, A., Frick, B., O’Donovan, J. and Spaner, D. (2019). Impact of three integrated crop protection treat- (2007). Cultivar and seeding rate effects on the competitive ments on the varieties of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum ability of spring cereals grown under organic production in L.) in Moscow area, Russia. Research on Crops, 20(1), Northern Canada. Agronomy Journal, 99(5), 1199 – 1207. 161 – 168. DOI:10.31830/2348-7542.2019.022. DOI:10.2134/agronj2006.0262. Rebukh, N.Y., Polityko, P.M., Kapranov, V.N. and Kiselev, E.F. Messaoudi, H., Gérard, F., Dokukin, P., Djamai, H., Rebouh, (2019). Nutrient removal and payback of mineral fertilizers Y.N. and Latati, M. (2020). Effects of intercropping on by harvest of winter wheat varieties under technologies of field-scale phosphorus acquisition processes in a calcareous different intensity levels. RUDN Journal of Agronomy and soil. Plant and Soil, 449, 331 – 341. DOI:10.1007/s11104- Animal Industries, 14(2), 142 – 153. DOI:10.22363/2312- 020-04491-7. 797X-2019-14-2-142-153. Mishra, J.S. and Singh, V.P. (2012). Tillage and weed control Storkey, J., Cussans, J.W., Lutman, P.J.W. and Blair, A.M. effects on productivity of a dry seeded rice-wheat system on (2003). The combination of a simulation and an empir- a Vertisol in Central India. Soil and Tillage Research, 123, ical model of crop/weed competition to estimate yield 11 – 20. DOI:10.1016/J.STILL.2012.02.003. loss from Alopecurus myosuroides in winter wheat. Field Murphy, C.E. and Lemerle, D. (2006). Continuous cropping Crop Research, 84(3), 291 – 301. DOI:10.1016/S0378- systems and weed selection. Euphytica, 148, 61 – 73. DOI: 4290(03)00096-0. 10.1007/s10681-006-5941-9. Tang, L., Cheng, C., Wan, K., Li, R., Wang, D., Tao, Y. and Nakka, S., Jugulam, M., Peterson, D. and Asif, M. (2019). Her- Chen, F. (2014). Impact of fertilizing pattern on the bio- bicide resistance: Development of wheat production sys- diversity of a weed community and wheat growth. PLoS tems and current status of resistant weeds in wheat cropping ONE, 9(1): e84370. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084370. systems. The Crop Journal, 7(6), 750 – 760. DOI:10.1016/j. Mohammadi, H. and Ismail, B.S. (2018). Effect of herbicides cj.2019.09.004. on the density of broad leaf weeds and their effect on the Nazarko, O.M., Van Acker, R.C. and Entz, M.H. (2005). Strat- growth and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum egies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops L.). Journal of Agronomy, 17(1), 11 – 17. DOI:10.3923/ in Canada: A review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, ja.2018.11.17. 85(2), 457 – 479. DOI:10.4141/P04-158. Weis, M., Gutjahr, C., Ayala, V.R., Gerhards, R., Ritter, Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R. and Govaerts, B. (2015). C., Schölderle, F. Precision farming for weed manage- Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A ment: techniques. Gesunde Pflanzen, 60(4), 171 – 181. review. Field Crops Research, 183, 56 – 68. DOI:10.1016/j. DOI:10.1007/s10343-008-0195-1. fcr.2015.07.012. Van Der Meulen, A. and Chauhan, B.S. (2017). A review of Pansu, M., Ibrahim, H., Hatira, A., Brahim, N., Drevon, J.J., weed management in wheat using crop competition. Crop Harmand, J.M. and Blavet, D. (2018). Modelling the conti- Protection, 95, 38 – 44. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2016.08.004. nuous exchange of nitrogen between microbial decom- Vila-Aiub, M.M. (2019). Fitness of herbicide-resistant weeds: posers, the organs and symbionts of plants, soil reserves Current knowledge and implications for management. and the atmosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 125, Plants, 8(11), 469. DOI:10.3390/plants8110469. 185 – 196. DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.06.011 . Talgre, L., Lauringson, E. and Koppel, M. (2008). Effect of Polityko, P., Rebouh, N.Y., Kucher, D., Vvedenskiy, V., Kapran- reduced herbicide dosages on weed infestation in spring ov, V., Atmachian, G. and Latati, M. (2020). Productivity barley. Zemdirbyste, 95(3), 194 – 201. and grain quality of three spring wheat (Triticum aestivum Received: February 9, 2021 l.) cultivars under three cultivation technologies. EurAsian Accepted: May 27, 2021 Journal of BioSciences, 14(1), 2089 – 2095.

Journal

Agriculture – de Gruyter

Published: Jul 1, 2021

Keywords: gluten content; herbicide; proteins content; weed; wheat varieties; yield

There are no references for this article.