Translator Disclaimer
1 September 2013 Targeting Weed Seeds In-Crop: A New Weed Control Paradigm for Global Agriculture
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The widespread evolution of multiple herbicide resistance in the most serious annual weeds infesting Australian cropping fields has forced the development of alternative, non-chemical weed control strategies, especially new techniques at grain harvest. Harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems target weed seed during commercial grain harvest operations and act to minimize fresh seed inputs to the seedbank. These systems exploit two key biological weaknesses of targeted annual weed species: seed retention at maturity and a short-lived seedbank. HWSC systems, including chaff carts, narrow windrow burning, bale direct, and the Harrington Seed Destructor, target the weed seed bearing chaff material during commercial grain harvest. The destruction of these weed seeds at or after grain harvest facilitates weed seedbank decline, and when combined with conventional herbicide use, can drive weed populations to very low levels. Very low weed populations are key to sustainability of weed control practices. Here we introduce HWSC as a new paradigm for global agriculture and discuss how these techniques have aided Australian grain cropping and their potential utility in global agriculture.

La ampliamente diseminada evolución de resistencia a múltiples herbicidas en las malezas anuales más serias infestando los sistemas de cultivos australianos ha forzado el desarrollo de estrategias de control de malezas alternativas, especialmente nuevas técnicas al momento de la cosecha de granos. Los sistemas de control de semillas de malezas en cosecha (HWSC) se enfocan en las semillas de malezas durante las operaciones de cosecha comercial de granos y actúan para minimizar el suministro de semillas frescas al banco de semillas. Estos sistemas explotan dos debilidades biológicas clave de las especies de malezas anuales de interés: retención de semilla al momento de la madurez y un banco de semillas de corta vida. Los sistemas HWSC, incluyendo las carretas de descarga de grano, la quema de líneas angostas de residuos después de la cosecha, el embalado directo, y el Destructor de Semilla Harrington, se enfocan en los residuos de cosecha que contienen semillas de maleza durante la cosecha comercial de grano. La destrucción de estas semillas de malezas durante o después de la cosecha del grano facilitan la reducción del banco de semillas de malezas, y cuando se combinan con el uso convencional de herbicidas, pueden llevar las poblaciones de malezas a niveles muy bajos. Tener poblaciones muy bajas de malezas es clave para la sostenibilidad de las prácticas de control de malezas. Aquí, nosotros introducimos HWSC como un nuevo paradigma para la agricultura global y discutimos como estas técnicas han ayudado a la producción australiana de granos y su utilidad potencial en la agricultura global.

In global crops, infestations of crop weeds are a ubiquitous annual threat to productivity, especially in the major field crops (wheat [Triticum aestivum L.], rice [Oryza sativa L.], soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], corn [Zea mays L.], canola [Brassica napus L.], etc.). The significant annual threat from infesting weeds must be minimized to maximize crop productivity and thus global food supply/security. Currently, herbicides are the dominant technology used against infesting weeds. The many advantages of herbicides over other forms of weed control have resulted in almost exclusive reliance on herbicide technology in field cropping systems in many parts of the world. However, the exposure of huge weed populations over vast areas to strong herbicide selection has inevitably resulted in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weed populations (Heap 2013; Powles and Yu 2010). Herbicide-resistant weeds, particularly those of major field crops, pose a significant challenge to global food production/security.

The widespread evolution of resistance to herbicides in weed species threatens herbicide sustainability and necessitates the development of new weed control tools. While herbicide-resistant weeds have evolved in agricultural regions around the world (Heap 2013), the evolution of resistant weed populations across the Australian field crops landscape has been extreme. Multiple herbicide-resistant annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaud.) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) populations now dominate in Australian crop production systems (Boutsalis et al. 2012; Broster and Pratley 2006; Owen et al. 2007, 2013; Walsh et al. 2007). The need for new herbicides is high; however, the dramatic slowing of herbicide discovery (Duke 2012) and regulatory removal of some herbicides (Chauvel et al. 2012) means that existing herbicides are at risk from over-use, leading to resistance evolution in weeds. Thus, continuing herbicide resistance evolution is a major threat to future crop weed control and a potent driving force in the search for alternate weed control technologies (Powles and Matthews 1992). Here, we describe how a major herbicide-resistant weed problem has been the catalyst for the development of new non-chemical weed control techniques focused on weed seed capture and destruction during commercial grain crop harvest. We illustrate how the inclusion of these techniques in weed control programs allows weed populations to be driven to and maintained at very low levels. Finally, we speculate on the potential for at-harvest weed seed targeting technologies in global field crops.

Current Weed Control Paradigm in Global Field Crops: Target Weed Seedlings

The current dominant paradigm for weed control in field crops is PRE or early POST herbicides to remove weed seedlings in young, establishing crops. Crop yield is secured by controlling weed seedlings during this critical “weed free period” during which crop plants are particularly vulnerable to weed competition (Knezevic et al. 2002; Zimdahl 1988). However, despite herbicide use, some in-crop weeds inevitably escape herbicide control for a range of reasons (eg. adverse environmental conditions, insufficient herbicide, herbicide resistance, delayed emergence) and in the great majority of situations there is no other feasible, practicable method of controlling these surviving weeds. Hence, these weeds survive to maturity with the crop and produce significant quantities of seed which sustain or build a viable weed seedbank (Buhler et al. 1997; Norris 2007).

It is the ongoing, annual production of weed seeds that perpetuates and amplifies many crop-weed infestations in global field crops. Annual weed seedbank replenishment ensures that each year high weed numbers emerge and are herbicide treated, with the inevitable risk of resistance evolution. It has long been recognized that alternate weed control strategies are needed to alleviate intense herbicide selection (Powles and Matthews 1992). Globally, there are few suitable alternatives to herbicides and even when alternatives (eg. cultivation, crop competition, delayed seeding) are considered, the focus remains on preventing weed seedlings from interfering with early crop growth. However, weed adaptations, such as seed dormancy, in response to changes in cultivation and cropping practices, have already occurred in several annual species including annual ryegrass (Owen et al. 2011), wild oats (Avena fatua L.) (Jana and Thai 1987), brome grass (Bromus rigidus Roth.) (Kleemann and Gill 2006) and barley grass (Hordeum murinum L.) (Fleet and Gill 2012). These evolutionary adaptations in response to a selection pressure further highlight the consequences of neglecting seed production and seedbank replenishment by weeds surviving early season control practices. Clearly, new tools are needed that complement early season weed control techniques by targeting annual weed seed production.

New Weed Control Paradigm: Harvest Weed Seed Control (HWSC)

Widespread multiple herbicide resistance in the very important weeds, annual ryegrass, (Boutsalis et al. 2012; Broster and Pratley 2006; Owen et al. 2007, 2013) and wild radish (Walsh et al. 2001, 2007), of Australian cropping has forced the development of additional weed control strategies. Knowledge that the major proportion of an in-crop annual ryegrass population results from the previous season's seed production led to a focus on minimizing weed seed production (Gill and Holmes 1997; McGowan 1970; Monaghan 1980; Pearce and Holmes 1976; Reeves and Smith 1975). The biological attribute of seed retention at maturity in annual ryegrass, wild radish, and several other annual crop weed species, means that seeds are attached to the upright plant enabling the weed seeds to be collected (harvested) during grain crop harvest. For example, in field crops a large proportion (up to 80%) of total annual ryegrass seed production can be collected during a typical commercial grain harvest (Walsh and Powles 2007). These weed seeds enter the front of the grain harvester, are processed, and exit the grain harvester in the chaff fraction. An irony is that these “harvested” weed seeds are evenly redistributed across the crop field to become future weed problems. Thus, grain crop harvest presents an opportunity to target weed seed production, thereby minimizing replenishment/increase of the weed seedbank. As outlined below, harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems have been developed in Australia to target and destroy weed seeds during commercial grain crop harvest, minimizing weed seed inputs into the seedbank (Walsh and Powles 2007).

HWSC Systems

Chaff carts.

The recognition that at grain harvest the seeds of important crop weeds are intact and attached to the upright plant and can be “harvested” led to the introduction of chaff cart collection systems into Australian cropping. This relatively simple HWSC system consists of a chaff collection and transfer mechanism, attached to a grain harvester that delivers the weed seed bearing chaff fraction into a bulk collection bin, usually a trailing cart (Figure 1). Chaff cart collection systems have been shown to achieve the collection and removal of high proportions of seed from crop-infesting populations of annual ryegrass, wild radish (Walsh and Powles 2007) and wild oat (Shirtliffe and Entz 2005) (Table 1). The collected chaff material must be managed in order to prevent the weed seeds present from returning to the cropping field. The large volume of collected chaff is typically dumped in chaff heaps in lines across fields in preparation for subsequent burning to achieve weed seed destruction. Alternatively, chaff material is a valuable livestock feed source and can be grazed in-situ or, in some instances, collected for use in feed-lots. This necessity for post-harvest management of chaff material has limited the Australian adoption of chaff cart collection systems despite their recognized efficacy in the management of major herbicide-resistant weed problems. However, the weed seed targeting efficacy of chaff cart collection systems (Walsh and Powles 2007) maintained the continuing interest in the development of additional HWSC systems.

Narrow windrow burning.

The simple but effective narrow windrow burning system is currently the most widely adopted HWSC system in Australia. This inexpensive system uses a grain harvester mounted chute to concentrate all of the exiting chaff and straw residues into a narrow-windrow (500 to 600mm) (Figure 2a). These narrow windrows are subsequently carefully burnt under the right environmental conditions, avoiding burning the entire crop field (Figure 2b). The concentration of chaff and straw residues increases the duration and temperature of burning, creating the highest potential for weed seed destruction. Weed seed kill levels of 99% for both annual ryegrass and wild radish have been recorded from the narrow windrow burning of wheat, canola, and lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) chaff and straw residues (Table 1, Walsh and Newman 2007). The simplicity and low cost of this narrow-windrow system has resulted in its adoption by an estimated 70% of crop producers in the major grain production state of Western Australia.

Bale direct.

The Bale Direct System consists of a large square baler directly attached to the harvester that constructs bales from the chaff and straw residues exiting the grain harvester (Figure 3). This system serves to both capture weed seeds and bale harvest residues for livestock feed. Our studies (Table 1) have determined that very high proportions (95%) of annual ryegrass seeds are collected and removed from fields (Walsh and Powles 2007). However, the availability of suitable markets for the baled material has limited the adoption of this system by Australian producers.

Harrington Seed Destructor (HSD).

The effective processing of the weed-seed bearing chaff material during grain crop harvest has been a long held goal for Australian grain growers. In 2005, innovative Australian crop producer Ray Harrington commenced evaluating the chaff processing potential of a cage mill. Cage mills are a robust technology with a wide variety of uses in crushing rock and ore materials (Stedman 1996). We subsequently established the ability of a stationary cage mill to process wheat chaff sufficiently to destroy at least 90% of the contained annual ryegrass seeds (Walsh et al. 2012). These encouraging results led to the development of what is now termed the Harrington Seed Destructor (HSD); a trailer mounted cage mill, with chaff and straw transfer systems, and a diesel motor as a power source (Figure 4). Evaluation of the HSD during commercial wheat crop harvest determined that the HSD will destroy at least 95% of annual ryegrass, wild radish, wild oat, and brome grass seed present in the chaff fraction of harvest residues (Table 1). These results confirm the potential of the HSD as an effective system for weed seed destruction during grain crop harvest. A distinct advantage of this HWSC system is the retention of all harvest residues, a critical attribute for soil moisture and nutrient conservation. With the efficacy of this system established (Walsh et al. 2012), the HSD system has recently progressed into commercial production (de-bruin 2013).

Driving Weed Populations to Very Low Densities

The real value of HWSC systems is as part of a system embracing early-season weed control practices (herbicides etc.) on weed seedlings and HWSC on late-season mature seed bearing weeds. The at-harvest targeting of these weeds minimizes seedbank contributions facilitating seedbank decline. The combined impact of herbicides plus HWSC over 10 consecutive seasons (2002 to 2011) on annual ryegrass populations was monitored in 25 large, commercial Western Australian cropping fields (Figure 5). This study commenced with producers nominating “problem fields” with high (35 to 50 plants m−2) in-crop annual ryegrass densities. Over 10 consecutive growing seasons, herbicide focused weed management practices were implemented on these fields with the aim of reducing annual ryegrass populations to acceptably low plant densities of < 1 plant m−2. In-crop annual ryegrass population densities were recorded annually in 10 random 0.1 m2 quadrats at crop flowering. As expected, effective herbicide treatments reduced in-crop annual ryegrass populations to < 10 plants m−2 within five consecutive growing seasons. However, it was only in the fields where both early-season herbicides and HWSC were routinely practiced that the targeted low weed densities were achieved. In these fields, annual ryegrass numbers were reduced from an average of 35 plants m−2 in 2002 to just 0.5 plants m−2 in 2011. In contrast, where herbicides alone were used, average annual ryegrass plant densities remained above 4 plants m−2. It is emphasized that in these fields annual ryegrass populations were not resistant to the herbicides used.

The Global Potential for HWSC Systems

The potential for HWSC systems to effectively target weed seed production during commercial harvest of global grain crops can obviously only be effective on crop weed populations that have high seed retention at the time of crop maturity. At present, to our knowledge, HWSC is only practiced in Australia. However, the problems of weed seed present at crop harvest are well recognized in major crop producing countries including the USA (Davis 2008), Canada (Shirtliffe and Entz 2005), Spain (Barroso et al. 2006), Italy (Balsari et al. 1994), and Argentina (Ballaré et al. 1987). Across these regions it is well recognized that grain harvester dispersal from weeds bearing mature seeds at crop harvest is a major factor in weed seedbank replenishment. Importantly many studies in these cropping systems have reported high proportions (> 50%) of total seed production retained on weed plants at a height that allows collection by the harvester (Table 2). The efficacy of HWSC systems in targeting weed seed production at crop maturity is directly related to the amount of seed that harvesters collect during commercial grain harvest. Therefore, high proportions of weed seed retention at harvest in global crops clearly highlight the potential for HWSC systems as a new non-chemical weed control tool. We believe that HWSC should be viewed as a tool to help achieve herbicide sustainability. We do not envision HWSC as a “stand-alone” weed control tool but as a diversity introducing technique, helping avoid an exclusive reliance on herbicides for weed control.

Preserving Weed Control Resources

The practical implications of HWSC are a more resilient crop production system that minimizes resistance evolution in weed populations. As shown here, the combination of effective herbicides plus HWSC techniques reduced and maintained annual ryegrass populations at very low densities (< 1.0 plant m−2) (Figure 5). In cropping systems, low weed densities allow flexibility in crop choice, seeding time, and herbicide use. This flexibility provides producers with the capacity to readily adjust production practices in tune with seasonal and market considerations. Low weed densities in crop fields also play a critical role in sustaining herbicide resources for the ongoing control of crop-weeds, despite their demonstrated potential for herbicide resistance evolution (Jordan and Jannink 1997; Mortimer 1997). Resistance evolution is related to population size and resistance endowing traits are initially rare (i.e. 10−4 to 10−9), but resistance will evolve rapidly in large populations exposed persistently to herbicide selection (Diggle and Neve 2001). Thus targeting of weed seed production to restrict population densities to very low levels not only has production benefits but importantly reduces the potential for resistance evolution to our remaining highly valued herbicide resources. Of course, the HWSC practices outlined are also a selection pressure on weed populations for gene traits enabling weed seed production in the presence of HWSC practices (e.g. earlier maturity and seed shattering/dispersal before HWSC practices). Thus, as for any weed control tool, diversity in use is essential to long-term sustainability.

Literature Cited

1.

C. L Ballaré A. L Scopel C. M Ghersaand R. A Sánchez 1987. The demography of Datura ferox (L.) in soybean crops. Weed Res. 27: 91–102. Google Scholar

2.

P Balsari A Finassiand G Airoldi 1994. Development of a device to separate weed seeds harvested by a combine and reduce their degree of germination. 12th World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineers Report No. 94-D-062. p. Google Scholar

3.

J Barroso L Navarrete M. J Sánchez Del Arco C Fernandez-Quintanilla P.J.W Lutman N. H Perryand R.I Hull 2006. Dispersal of Avena fatua and Avena sterilis patches by natural dissemination, soil tillage and combine harvesters. Weed Res. 46:118–128. Google Scholar

4.

J. M Blanco-Moreno L Chamorro R. M Masalles J Recasensand F. X Sans 2004. Spatial distribution of Lolium rigidum seedlings following seed dispersal by combine harvesters. Weed Res. 44:375–387. Google Scholar

5.

P Boutsalis G. S Gilland C Preston 2012. Incidence of herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) across Southeastern Australia. Weed Technol. 26:391–398. Google Scholar

6.

J. C Brosterand J Pratley 2006. A decade of monitoring herbicide resistance in Lolium rigidum in Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46:1151–1160. Google Scholar

7.

D. D Buhler R. G Hartzlerand F Forcella 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 45:329–336. Google Scholar

8.

B Chauvel J.-P Guillemin J Gasquezand C Gauvrit 2012. History of chemical weeding from 1944 to 2011 in France: Changes and evolution of herbicide molecules. Crop Prot. 42:320–326. Google Scholar

9.

A. S Davis 2008. Weed seed pools concurrent with corn and soybean harvest in Illinois. Weed Sci. 56:503–508. Google Scholar

10.

de-bruin. 2013. De bruin engineering.  http://www.debruinengineering.com.au/. Accessed January 2013. Google Scholar

11.

A. J Diggleand P Neve 2001. The population dynamics and genetics of herbicide resistance - a modeling approach. Pages 61–99 in S.B Powles D.L Shaner eds. Herbicide resistance and world grains. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc. Google Scholar

12.

S. O Duke 2012. Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manage. Sci. 68:505–512. Google Scholar

13.

M Feldmanand W. B Reed 1974. Distribution of wild oat seeds during cereal crop swathing and combining. Pages 1–10 in 1974 Annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering. Laval University, Ste. Foy, PQ. Google Scholar

14.

B Fleetand G Gill 2012. Seed Dormancy and Seedling Recruitment in Smooth Barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum) Populations in Southern Australia. Weed Sci. 60:394–400. Google Scholar

15.

F Forcella D. H Petersonand J. C Barbour 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:535–543. Google Scholar

16.

G. S Gill 1996. Managment of herbicide resistant ryegrass in Western Australia—research and its adoption. Pages 542–545 in R.C.H Shepherd ed. 11th Australian Weeds conference. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Weed Science Society of Victoria. Google Scholar

17.

G. S Gilland J. E Holmes 1997. Efficacy of cultural control methods for combating herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum. Pestic. Sci. 51:352–358. Google Scholar

18.

I. M Heap 2013. The International survey of herbicide resistant weeds.  http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed January 2013. Google Scholar

19.

S Janaand K. M Thai 1987. Patterns of changes of dormant genotypes in Avena fatua populations under different agricultural conditions. Can. J. Bot. 65:1741–1745. Google Scholar

20.

N. R Jordanand J. L Jannink 1997. Assessing the practical importance of weed evolution: a research agenda. Weed Res. 37:237–246. Google Scholar

21.

S.G.L Kleemannand G. S Gill 2006. Differences in the distribution and seed germination behaviour of populations of Bromus rigidus and Bromus diandrus in South Australia: adaptations to habitat and implications for weed management. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 57:213–219. Google Scholar

22.

S. Z Knezevic S. P Evans E. E Blankenship R. C Van Ackerand J. L Lindquist 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786. Google Scholar

23.

J. M Matthews R Llewellyn S Powlesand T Reeves 1996. Integrated weed management for the control of herbicide resistant annual ryegrass. Pages 417–420 in Proceedings of the 8th Australian Agronomy Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia, 30 January to 2 February, 1996. Toowoomba, Australia: Australian Society of Agronomy. Google Scholar

24.

A McGowan 1970. Comparative germination patterns of annual grasses in north-eastern Victoria. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 10:401–404. Google Scholar

25.

R Metz 1969. Causes of the increasing spread of wild oats (Avena fatua) and some field hygiene measures for destroying or eliminating wild oat seeds. NachBL dt PflSchutzdienst Berl. 24:85–88. Google Scholar

26.

N. M Monaghan 1980. The biology and control of Lolium rigidum as a weed of wheat. Weed Res. 20:117–121. Google Scholar

27.

A. M Mortimer 1997. Phenological adaptation in weeds—an evolutionary response to the use of herbicides? Pestic. Sci. 51:299–304. Google Scholar

28.

R. F Norris 2007. Weed fecundity: Current status and future needs. Crop Prot. 26:182–188. Google Scholar

29.

M Owen M. J Walsh R Llewellynand S.B Powles 2007. Widespread occurrence of multiple herbicide resistance in Western Australian annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) populations. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 58:711–718. Google Scholar

30.

M. J Owen N Martinezand S. B Powles 2013. Multiple herbicide resistant Lolium rigidum (annual ryegrass) now dominates across the Western Australian grain belt. Weed Res. in review. Google Scholar

31.

M. J Owen P. J Michael M Renton K. J Steadmanand S. B Powles 2011. Towards large-scale prediction of Lolium rigidum emergence. II. Correlation between dormancy and herbicide resistance levels suggests an impact of cropping systems. Weed Res. 51:133–141. Google Scholar

32.

G. A Pearceand J. E Holmes 1976. The control of annual ryegrass. J. Agric. West. Aust. 17:77–82. Google Scholar

33.

S. B Powlesand J. M Matthews 1992. Multiple herbicide resistance in annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum): the driving force for the adoption of integrated weed management. Pages 75–87 in I Denholm A Devonshire D Holloman eds. Achievements and Development in combating Combating Pesticide Resistance. London: SCI: Elsevier. Google Scholar

34.

S. B Powlesand Q Yu 2010. Evolution in Action: Plants Resistant to Herbicides. Pages 317–347 in S Merchant W.R Briggs D Ort eds. Annual Review of Plant Biology, Vol 61. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews. Google Scholar

35.

T. G Reevesand I. S Smith 1975. Pasture management and cultural methods for the control of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in wheat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 15:527–530. Google Scholar

36.

S. J Shirtliffeand M. H Entz 2005. Chaff collection reduces seed dispersal of wild oat (Avena fatua) by a combine harvester. Weed Sci. 53:465–470. Google Scholar

37.

S. J Shirtliffe M. H Entzand R. C Van Acker 2000. Avena fatua development and seed shatter as related to thermal time. Weed Sci. 48:555–560. Google Scholar

38.

Stedman. 1996. Stedman Cage Mill Primer.  http://www.stedman-machine.com/index.htm. Accessed January 2013. Google Scholar

39.

M. J Walsh R. D Duaneand S. B Powles 2001. High frequency of chlorsulfuron-resistant wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) populations across the Western Australian wheatbelt. Weed Technol. 15:199–203. Google Scholar

40.

M. J Walsh R. B Harringtonand S. B Powles 2012. Harrington seed destructor: A new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci. 52:1343–1347. Google Scholar

41.

M. J Walshand P Newman 2007. Burning narrow windrows for weed seed destruction. Field Crop Res. 104:24–40. Google Scholar

42.

M. J Walsh M. J Owenand S. B Powles 2007. Frequency and distribution of herbicide resistance in Raphanus raphanistrum populations randomly collected across the Western Australia wheatbelt. Weed Res. 47:542–550. Google Scholar

43.

M. J Walshand S. B Powles 2007. Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol. 21:332–338. Google Scholar

44.

B. J Wilson 1970. Studies on the shedding of seed of Avena fatua in various cereal crops and the presence of the seed in the harvested matter. Pages 831–836 in Proceedings of the 10th Brighton Weed Control Conference. Croydon, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council. Google Scholar

45.

R. L Zimdahl 1988. The concept and appliation of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–155 in M.A Altieri M Liebman eds. Weed managment in Agroecosystems: Ecological approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Google Scholar

Figure 1. 

Chaff cart system in operation during commercial wheat crop harvest.

i0890-037X-27-3-431-f01.tif

Figure 2 

a) Chaff chute mounted on the rear of a harvester to form narrow windrows during harvest. b) Burning narrow windrows in wheat stubble in autumn (March to April)

i0890-037X-27-3-431-f02.tif

Figure 3. 

Bale direct system collecting and baling chaff and straw residues during wheat harvest.

i0890-037X-27-3-431-f03.tif

Figure 4. 

First commercially available Harrington Seed Destructor (Photo. courtesy de bruin engineering)

i0890-037X-27-3-431-f04.tif

Figure 5. 

Influence of the long-term use of herbicides alone and herbicides plus harvest weed seed control (HWSC) on in-crop annual ryegrass plant densities in northern WA cropping fields. Capped bars represent the standard error values showing variation around the mean annual ryegrass populations in 17 fields (Herbicides) or 8 fields (Herbicides plus HWSC).

i0890-037X-27-3-431-f05.tif

Table 1. 

Efficacy of HWSC systems in targeting weed seeds during cereal crop harvest.

i0890-037X-27-3-431-t01.eps

Table 2. 

Proportion of total weed seed production retained at crop harvest for species present in global grain crops.

i0890-037X-27-3-431-t02.eps
Michael Walsh, Peter Newman, and Stephen Powles "Targeting Weed Seeds In-Crop: A New Weed Control Paradigm for Global Agriculture," Weed Technology 27(3), 431-436, (1 September 2013). https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-12-00181.1
Received: 15 December 2012; Accepted: 1 March 2013; Published: 1 September 2013
JOURNAL ARTICLE
6 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top