Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2015 Jan 26;55(3):239–248. doi: 10.1111/wre.12137

A review of the potential for competitive cereal cultivars as a tool in integrated weed management

I K S Andrew 1,, J Storkey 1, D L Sparkes 2
Editor: Bert Lotz3
PMCID: PMC4950144  PMID: 27478257

Summary

Competitive crop cultivars offer a potentially cheap option to include in integrated weed management strategies (IWM). Although cultivars with high competitive potential have been identified amongst cereal crops, competitiveness has not traditionally been considered a priority for breeding or farmer cultivar choice. The challenge of managing herbicide‐resistant weed populations has, however, renewed interest in cultural weed control options, including competitive cultivars. We evaluated the current understanding of the traits that explain variability in competitive ability between cultivars, the relationship between suppression of weed neighbours and tolerance of their presence and the existence of trade‐offs between competitive ability and yield in weed‐free scenarios. A large number of relationships between competitive ability and plant traits have been reported in the literature, including plant height, speed of development, canopy architecture and partitioning of resources. There is uncertainty over the relationship between suppressive ability and tolerance, although tolerance is a less stable trait over seasons and locations. To realise the potential of competitive crop cultivars as a tool in IWM, a quick and simple‐to‐use protocol for assessing the competitive potential of new cultivars is required; it is likely that this will not be based on a single trait, but will need to capture the combined effect of multiple traits. A way needs to be found to make this information accessible to farmers, so that competitive cultivars can be better integrated into their weed control programmes.

Keywords: cultural weed control, plant functional traits, suppression, tolerance

Introduction

In an agricultural system, the aim is to produce the highest yield achievable whilst minimising costs. In comparison with pests and diseases, weeds have the potential to incur the greatest yield loss, through competition with the crop and decreasing yield quality, and can, therefore, incur high costs of control (Oerke, 2006). However, the introduction of herbicides has allowed very effective and relatively cheap control of weed species, relieving arable farmers of a heavy financial burden and contributing to the increase in average yield seen during the period of their adoption (Moss et al., 2004). Unfortunately, the over‐reliance on chemical control has also led to a number of environmental and agronomic concerns. The application of herbicides, combined with other changes in farmland management, is leading to the reduction of non‐weedy species and having impacts on farmland biodiversity and ecosystem function (Moonen & Bàrberi, 2008; Storkey et al., 2012). More importantly, from a production perspective, herbicide resistance is now widespread amongst many problematic weed species, encouraged by the increasing dependence upon a limited number of active ingredients (Heap, 1997; Moss et al., 2011). In the UK, herbicide‐resistant Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. can be found on at least 16 000 farms in 34 counties (Moss et al., 2011). In addition, EU regulations are reducing the number of herbicide options, and new modes of action are proving elusive, further increasing the risk of the development of resistance to the remaining products (Duke, 2012). In response to these challenges, there is renewed interest in the potential for integrating non‐chemical (or ‘cultural’) control options into weed control strategies.

Many cultural control methods may be employed by farmers to reduce weed populations, including delayed drilling, increased seed rate and rotational ploughing (Lutman et al., 2013). Competitive cultivars are a potentially attractive option in comparison, because they do not incur any additional costs. Such cultivars may be more capable of reducing the fitness of a weed species through competition for limited resources (Christensen, 1995), may produce chemical exudates that reduce growth (Wu et al., 1999) and reduce the economic burden of weeds by resisting yield loss (Reeves & Brooke, 1977; Vandeleur & Gill, 2004). Competitive cultivars could reduce the seed return of a weed species and contribute to medium to long‐term weed management strategies, reducing the pressure on herbicides and improving the sustainability of cropping systems. For example, in Greece, the use of competitive cultivars alone has already been demonstrated to allow for a 50% reduction in recommended levels of herbicides in wheat (Travlos, 2012).

Variability between cereal cultivars in their ability to resist yield losses from weed competition was demonstrated in the 1970s. Four winter wheat cultivars were compared for their ability to withstand competitive pressure, with a range of 28–39% reduction in yield when Lolium multiflorum L. was present at c. 100 plants m−2 (Appleby et al., 1976). Differences between cultivars were also shown between 29 cultivars in competition with Lolium rigidum Gaudin, where, at densities of 1500 weeds m−2, yield reductions ranged from 23.1% to 47.8% (Reeves & Brooke, 1977). As modern, short‐strawed cultivars entered the market, variation in their capacity to decrease weed fitness continued to generate research interest. For example, two cultivars of wheat and barley showed different capacities to reduce the number of seed heads produced by A. myosuroides (Moss, 1985). Wicks et al. (1986) demonstrated that winter wheat cultivars differed in their ability to negatively impact on the establishment and subsequent growth of the summer annuals Amaranthus retroflexus L., Portulaca oleracea L., Echinocholoa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv. and Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Vign. ex Janchen. In this study, control of weeds ranged from 59% to 96% when compared to plots where the crop had been removed by cultivation prior to May.

Comparative studies of this type are, however, of limited value outside of the experimental pool of cultivars. It is important that more predictive approaches are developed that can be used to assess new cultivars or guide future crop breeding efforts. With this in mind, this review discusses first the distinction between suppression and tolerance and then assesses what is known about the suite of traits that determines how competitive ability varies between cultivars. We focus primarily on the cereals wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and oats (Avena sativa L.). Allelopathy has more recently started to attract interest in cereals and has been demonstrated to be of importance in both wheat and barley in determining competitive outcomes (Bertholdsson, 2005), but is not considered here in detail. For a recent review of allelopathy in cereal crops, see Worthington and Reberg‐Horton (2013).

Suppression versus tolerance of weeds

Two aspects of cultivar competitiveness can be defined. The first is the ability of the crop to reduce the fitness of a competitor, and the second is the ability of the crop to withstand the competitive impact of neighbours and resist yield loss (Goldberg, 1990; Grace, 1990). These are referred to by different terms in the literature, but here will be described, respectively, as ‘suppressive ability’ and ‘tolerance ability’ (Hansen et al., 2008). There is value in defining suppression and tolerance, as both have different outcomes in terms of weed management. In the presence of a strong suppressive cultivar, weed species will have reduced seed production, which is a viable part of a long‐term strategy in weed control. By contrast, tolerance means yield will be maintained under weed pressure (Kirkland & Hunter, 1991; Cosser et al., 1997). However, it does not necessarily imply any control is exerted on a weed population, potentially allowing it to reach levels that can no longer be tolerated (Appleby et al., 1976; Jordan, 1993; Lemerle et al., 1996).

Variation in suppressive ability between cultivars of winter wheat and spring barley have been observed against volunteer oil seed rape (Brassica napus L.) (Christensen et al., 1994; Christensen, 1995). Similar results have been observed in wheat against L. rigidum (Lemerle et al., 1996), Aegilops cylindrica Host (Ogg & Seefeldt, 1999), Galium aparine L. (Mennan & Zandstra, 2005) and weed mixtures (Wicks et al., 1986; Cosser et al., 1997; Korres & Froud‐Williams, 2002). Differences in tolerance ability have been identified between cultivars of wheat (Appleby et al., 1976; Reeves & Brooke, 1977; Challaiah et al., 1986; Vandeleur & Gill, 2004; Zerner et al., 2008) and barley (O'Donovan et al., 2000). Tolerance has been observed to vary little between winter wheat cultivars in comparison with suppressive ability (Jordan, 1993; Olesen et al., 2004). Additionally, tolerance is often reported as being inconsistent over seasons and locations (Cousens & Mokhtari, 1998; Olesen et al., 2004). This has led to the suggestion that competitive tolerance does not exist as a mechanism to resist the suppressive effects of a neighbour sharing finite resources. So‐called tolerance traits may instead be stress‐resistance traits (Wang et al., 2010).

As the distinction between suppression and tolerance has been defined, research has sought to establish if they are correlated. Traits have typically been defined as having either suppressive or tolerance qualities (Huel & Hucl, 1996; Coleman et al., 2001) and, although some have been suggested to confer both (such as the assessment of wheat height in Seefeldt et al. (1999), there is no clear consensus in the literature on how they are linked. Negative relationships between tolerance and suppressive ability have been reported; (Miller & Werner, 1987), positive relationships in other cases (Goldberg & Fleetwood, 1987; Watson et al., 2006) or no perceivable relationship at all (Goldberg & Landa, 1991; Cahill et al., 2005). We contend that suppressive ability and tolerance are best considered as separate entities, due to the uncertainty of the relationship between them and, where possible, we maintain this distinction throughout. To describe a trait broadly as conferring a ‘competitive advantage’ could be misleading, as it may suggest that the trait confers both suppressive and tolerance ability (Lemerle et al., 2001; Cahill et al., 2005). Although, in this review, we consider both tolerance and suppression, the emphasis is on weed suppression, as this is more important in the context of integrating competitive cultivars into an IWM strategy.

The role of traits in competitive ability

The term ‘trait’ is used in ecology for a characteristic which may be used as a predictor of fitness in different environments. Some confusion has surrounded the use of this term. There are attempts to split definitions into levels of organisation, with the term ‘trait’ being reserved for any feature that is morphological, physiological or phenological and can be identified and measured at the level of the individual (Violle et al., 2007). This literature review will adhere to this definition, although target traits in some articles do not match the criteria and, indeed, competitive ability itself is often referred to as a trait.

Height

Early interest in competitive cultivar traits mainly focussed on maximum canopy height. This originated from the observed differences between the ‘new’ semidwarf and ‘old’ (and often taller) cultivars of wheat. Whilst lower yielding in weed‐free situations, taller cultivars were typically better tolerators of weed pressure and suppressors of weed growth (Appleby et al., 1976; Challaiah et al., 1986; Lemerle et al., 1996; Ogg & Seefeldt, 1999; Vandeleur & Gill, 2004). The benefit of height has been demonstrated in wheat in competition with Bromus tectorum L. (Challaiah et al., 1986), B. napus‐infested spring barley (Christensen, 1995), winter wheat against A. cylindrica (Ogg & Seefeldt, 1999) and oats, barley and wheat against G. aparine (Brain et al., 1999).

Although the advantages of plant height in terms of shading weeds are clear, it cannot, alone, explain variation in competitive ability. Wicks et al. (2004) compared thirteen red winter wheat cultivars in their ability to suppress a mixture of annual weeds. Their selection covered a broad spectrum of mature heights and discovered a negative correlation between total annual weed density and mature winter wheat height. However, two of the shortest cultivars exhibited stronger suppressive abilities than many tall cultivars. This was an indication that competitive ability cannot be attributed to a single trait, as has since been acknowledged by many authors (Moss, 1985; Lemerle et al., 1996; Roberts et al., 2001; Mennan & Zandstra, 2005; Watson et al., 2006). The relative contribution of height to suppression and tolerance has often been linked to the ability to intercept photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) (Wicks et al., 1986; Gooding et al., 1993; Lemerle et al., 1996), but a strong relationship between heights and PAR interception has not always been found (Blackshaw, 1994). The relative importance of height may be also related to weed species. Veronica hederifolia L., a shade‐tolerant species, achieved highest biomass under the tall cv. Maris Widgeon compared with shorter semidwarf cultivars, and the authors suggested that the species benefited from shade during establishment (Gooding et al., 1993). A range of other traits, reviewed below, have also been associated with weed suppression or tolerance in cereal cultivars.

Early vigour

Certain plant strategies are more successful than others under particular environmental pressures (Grime, 1977, 1979). The arable farming environment selects for ruderal traits, including rapid emergence (Didon, 2002) and high biomass accumulation early in the establishment phase (Grime, 2001), both adaptations to fertile environments with high disturbance. Early vigour of a cultivar is related to crop establishment and the rate at which aboveground material is produced and has been correlated with morphological leaf traits such as leaf area in the earliest phases of growth (Rebetzke & Richards, 1999). Traits relating to leaf size, specific leaf area and rate of production vary between cultivars and have been linked to higher suppressive ability (Huel & Hucl, 1996; Coleman et al., 2001; Rebetzke et al., 2004; Vandeleur & Gill, 2004; Zerner et al., 2008). Leaf traits at the early stages of growth have a high heritability, suggesting that early vigour may be selected for in breeding programmes (Rebetzke & Richards, 1999; Coleman et al., 2001).

Other indicator traits of early vigour, including early crop height and cover, are potentially useful for assessing variation between cultivars in suppressive ability (Olesen et al., 2004; Worthington et al., 2013) and could be valuable for designing screening protocols (see below). Bertholdsson (2005, 2011) used early crop mass as an indicator of vigour in wheat and barley and found it to be one of two traits (along with allelopathy) that significantly contributed to suppression of Lolium perenne L. and volunteer B. napus (oilseed rape) across all years of study. Bread wheat and durum wheat (Triticum durum) cultivars that were more competitive against L. rigidum also had high vigour, acquiring higher biomass at the seedling stage (Lemerle et al., 1996).

The importance of early growth traits in determining variance in competitive ability can be understood in the context of size‐asymmetric competition, as larger plants have a greater capacity to acquire resources than a smaller neighbour and the competitive advantage therefore becomes progressively greater through the season (Weiner & Thomas, 1986). This has also been demonstrated theoretically from a sensitivity analysis of an ecophysiological model of crop/weed competition that found the early growth rate before competition for resources began was the most important parameter in determining the outcome of competition (Kropff et al., 1992).

Christensen (1995) found that faster developing cultivars of spring barley were better suppressors of weeds. The importance of early height over mature height was demonstrated by Ogg and Seefeldt (1999), whose most tolerant and suppressive cultivars in the presence of Acylindrica were those that increased height at a faster rate. These were the tallest cultivars during growth (but not necessarily at maturity), and their competitive strength was partially attributed to corresponding root growth and the increased water uptake early in the season. Other studies have also found that wheat cultivars with late spike emergence were less tolerant of weed competition and suffered greater yield loss when grown with weeds (Huel & Hucl, 1996; Mason et al., 2008). These findings may support the ‘received wisdom’ that cereal cultivars which initiate upwards growth earlier have a competitive advantage, but there would be value in further understanding the processes driving crop/weed interactions at this key developmental stage.

Tillering

Crop tillering as a trait in competition is commonly measured in three different ways – rate of tiller production, final tiller number and tiller economy (% of tillers surviving). Rate of tiller production and final tiller number are morphologically plastic and density dependent; tiller numbers reduced with increased inter‐ and intraspecific competition. This has been demonstrated in wheat, barley and oats and can vary between cultivars (Huel & Hucl, 1996; Seavers & Wright, 1997; Champion et al., 1998). This translates to fertile head production and, consequently, yield reduction in weedy scenarios (Kirkland & Hunter, 1991; Satorre & Snaydon, 1992). Therefore, if tiller loss is not taken into consideration, tiller counts and rate of tillering from individual plants as a trait in crop–weed interactions may give misleading results.

The difficulty of separating density‐dependent effects from the innate capacity of cultivars to produce and maintain tillers may explain the lack of agreement between studies regarding the contribution of tiller number to competitive ability. Tillering capacity in wheat contributed to suppression of dry matter production in mixed flora assemblages (Korres & Froud‐Williams, 2002). Challaiah et al. (1986) confirmed the negative relationship between tiller number and seed production of B. tectorum, but this was not consistent across sites. Higher tiller numbers also reduced seed production of L. rigidum in Australia (Lemerle et al., 1996). Other work indicates that tiller number has little or no value in suppressing weeds (Moss, 1985; Wicks et al., 1986; Champion et al., 1998; Didon & Bostrom, 2003). It may be that the benefit of greater tiller number will be most evident at low crop densities, as, in such situations, they increase the shading ability of the crop stand (Hoad et al., 2006) – see section, below, on integrating competitive cultivar traits with other cultural control options. Tiller economy in weedy situations would benefit from further study. This may be considered, in itself, not only a tolerance trait (as it indicates maintaining yield under competitive pressure), but also a suppressive trait due to a cultivar's ability to maintain high levels of light interception (Challaiah et al., 1986). This was demonstrated by Seavers and Wright (1997), in a study of cultivars of wheat, barley and oats, where cultivars with greater tiller economy were those with a superior suppressive ability.

Canopy architecture

As opposed to focussing on individual traits, such as tiller number or seedling growth rate, other authors have considered a broader measure of ‘canopy architecture’ to be useful for determining variance between cultivars in competitiveness (Davies et al., 2004; Hoad et al., 2006). Violle et al. (2007) would possibly define canopy architecture as a performance trait – the conglomerate influence of many ecophysiological traits, which directly or indirectly influences individual fitness. A number of previous sections have covered facets of canopy architecture, but broad measures of canopy architecture deserve consideration because of their potential usefulness in the development of screening protocols for new varieties.

Various facets of canopy architecture have been measured using a range of methods that can be difficult to reconcile. In wheat and barley, leaf area index at early growth phases was associated with suppression (Huel & Hucl, 1996; Hoad et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2008). Coleman et al. (2001) quantified various potential measures of canopy architecture and concluded that canopy height, width and length of leaf 2, tiller number and size of flag leaf all contributed to suppressive ability, but relative importance differed between the 2 years of study. Seavers and Wright (1997) noted the importance of leaf size, combined with canopy height and tillering, in a study of wheat, barley and oats in competition with G. aparine and compared the growth form of two wheat cultivars. The more erect cultivar with upright leaves was less suppressive than the cultivar with larger, less rigid leaves, but only in one of the 2 years of study. However, Paynter and Hills (2009) could not explain differences in barley competitive ability against L. rigidium with growth habit or associated traits, such as plant height and tiller number.

In some cases, a PAR meter has been used to quantify the level of light penetration, capturing the combined effect of these variables. Such devices confirm that the most suppressive cultivars are those that intercept the most PAR (Didon & Hansson, 2002). Taller cultivars do not always transmit the least PAR through their canopies (Blackshaw, 1994), but often height does relate to PAR interception (Gooding et al., 1993; Champion et al., 1998). Measuring PAR may present a simple way to assess the suppressive ability of a cultivar. However, increased shading is also the primary mechanism by which increased seed rate suppresses weeds, as it influences canopy structure at a population level, thus any studies on differences between cultivars in canopy architecture must take into account seed rate and other factors such as row width.

Cereal leaves differ in their arrangement during growth (Davies et al., 2004). The importance of structure at different growth stages is significant when its interaction with cultivar is considered (Hoad et al., 2008). Cultivars that are planophile at the early growth stages have been shown to be more suppressive (Huel & Hucl, 1996; Hoad et al., 2006). Challaiah et al. (1986) measured wheat canopy diameter in early June and found that, when coupled with height, it provided a good means to predict competitive outcomes. Leaf angle in spring barley at growth stage 65 was indicative of suppressive ability (Hansen et al., 2008). Changes in canopy architecture through the season also need to be interpreted in the context of the growth habit of different weed species. How canopy architecture contributes to tolerance abilities is less clear. High leaf area index indicates higher tolerance in some studies (Zerner et al., 2008), but not others (Huel & Hucl, 1996).

Belowground traits

In comparison with aboveground canopy measurements, belowground traits have received relatively little attention in cereal crop–weed interactions. This is partly due to the difficulties associated with measuring root traits, particularly when incorporating them into a screening protocol for new cultivars. However, studies have indicated that root competition can be stronger than competition for light, particularly for nitrogen (Exley & Snaydon, 1992; Satorre & Snaydon, 1992; Lucas Bueno & Froud‐Williams, 1994; Stone et al., 1998; Lamb et al., 2007). Studies on other species have suggested that traits such as root length density, root elongation rate, number of root tips and total root length are determinants of competitive outcomes (Fargione & Tilman, 2006; Stevanato et al., 2011). At this stage, little variation in root traits between cereal cultivars has been quantified, implying a lack of opportunity to select cultivars for competitive ability (Satorre & Snaydon, 1992; Lucas Bueno & Froud‐Williams, 1994). In ecological theory, uncertainty remains over the role of above‐ and belowground partitioning in determining the outcome of competition for nutrients (Aerts, 1999). Whilst it might be expected that a cultivar with vigorous shoot growth would also have a larger root system supported by the translocation of assimilate, it may also be the case that there is a trade‐off between above‐ and belowground partitioning. As techniques for measuring root growth develop, understanding of how root traits contribute to suppressive ability and tolerance in cereals is expected to improve.

Low input systems (such as organic agriculture) are more likely to suffer mineral deficiencies, and there could be more potential in developing cultivars that are more competitive for belowground resources. In an experiment comparing the relative importance of aboveground and belowground traits of Arabidopsis thaliana under different nutrient regimes, belowground traits contributed significantly to suppressive ability in nutrient‐poor conditions (Wang et al., 2010). The ability to forage for water is vital in many locations and may become increasingly important for determining the outcome of crop/weed competition in the context of predictions of widespread drought as a result of climate change (Stratonovitch et al., 2012). It has also been proposed that belowground traits determine the degree to which crop and weeds share resource pools (Smith et al., 2010), meaning more tolerant cultivars may be those with belowground traits which avoid resource pool overlap.

The trade‐off between yield potential and weed competition

The majority of traits discussed above are not independent of one another and have implications for other plant functions in addition to weed competition, including yield potential and tolerance of stress. The higher potential yields of semidwarf modern cultivars have been achieved through changes in partitioning of carbon and nitrogen between stem and grain and more erect canopies with improved light use efficiency (Sinclair, 1998). But, as discussed above, shorter, more erect cultivars often have lower suppressive ability. Studies have established the link between suppressive ability and height, indicating that changes in allocation from the stem to the grain are at least partially responsible for the decreased competitive status of shorter varieties (Appleby et al., 1976; Challaiah et al., 1986; Siddique et al., 1989; Hoad et al., 2008). In low input systems, where weed pressure is often high, it may be acceptable to select cultivars on the basis of their competitive ability rather than their yield potential in weed‐free environments. However, for the majority of farmers, yield potential (as well as resistance to disease and lodging) will remain the primary criteria for the selection of cultivars and the main driver for breeders. Therefore, ideally, attention needs to be given to traits that confer greater competitive ability without incurring a yield reduction in the absence of weed competition. There is evidence that the trade‐off between weed competition and yield potential is not inevitable, suggesting that breeding for suppressive ability and weed‐free yield is a possibility in barley (Christensen, 1995; Didon & Bostrom, 2003; Bertholdsson, 2011) and in wheat (Reeves & Brooke, 1977; Coleman et al., 2001; Vandeleur & Gill, 2004). Huel and Hucl (1996) found that wheat cultivars with a high ability to withstand yield losses in weedy scenarios do not always rank low for weed‐free yield, implying that a trade‐off for tolerance need not necessarily be an impediment to breeding for competitive cultivars.

In addition, there may be trade‐offs between cultivar competitive ability and capability to resist stresses (Jordan, 1993). Such stresses could include limitation of resources other than light and space (such as water or minerals), resistance to crop pathogens and climatic extremes (Grime, 1977). Work in this area has been limited. Winter hardiness in winter barley had no bearing on competitive ability (Bertholdsson, 2011). However, work with A. thaliana suggests that lines with resistance to disease are less competitive in disease‐free scenarios than their susceptible counterparts (Damgaard & Jensen, 2002). Early vigour could be a penalty‐free competitive trait, but it has been suggested that, in drought conditions, this would result in rapid assimilation of all available soil moisture, leaving the resource limited during grain filling (Lemerle et al., 2001). Further work would be required to quantify these trade‐offs and identify win‐win traits that improve competitive ability without compromising other plant functions.

Integrated management strategies

Growing a more competitive cultivar alone will not solve the problems associated with the more challenging conditions for weed control discussed in the introduction. Rather, their use will need to be integrated with a range of other cultural control strategies and the prudent use of herbicides. How cultivars interact with these other weed control options needs to be considered.

Delayed sowing has been shown to decrease infestations of certain weed species in winter wheat (Christensen et al., 1994; Cosser et al., 1997) and barley (Kolbe, 1980). This is primarily because a proportion of the autumn weed species germinate and may be controlled before the crop is sown, therefore fewer germinate within the crop. Variation in rate of development between cultivars means they may differ in their ability to maintain competitive ability at different sowing dates. A high rate of growth may also become more important when cereals are sown late (Hoad et al., 2006). Farmers are often unwilling to delay sowing because of the risk of missing the drilling window and an impact on yield, but these yield penalties will not be the same across cultivars. Knowledge of which cultivars can maintain a high yield when drilled later in the season will make this option more viable, especially in combination with suppressive ability. Faster developing cultivars may have a role to play in mitigating the risk to yield.

Increased sowing rate increases competitive ability, which has low cost of application compared with other control methods, and does not carry the same risks as delayed planting. It works on the principle that a greater mass of crop is present to compete against weeds, granting the population an asymmetric advantage to gather more resources and so further increase its advantage over weed populations (Weiner & Thomas, 1986). Increased seed rate has been observed to suppress weed growth in wheat (Christensen et al., 1994; Grundy et al., 1997; Champion et al., 1998; Roberts et al., 2001; Korres & Froud‐Williams, 2002) and barley (Paynter & Hills, 2009; Auskalniene et al., 2010). Mennan and Zandstra (2005) found that yield increased under higher sowing rates for wheat with and without competition from G. aparine and, at higher densities, greater suppression of the weed was achieved.

It is likely that there will be an interaction between cultivar choice and seed rate, in terms of weed suppression. However, some studies have found that sowing rate did not change the competitive rankings of cultivars in wheat (Cousens & Fletcher, 1990) and barley (O'Donovan et al., 2000), suggesting that it is a strategy highly compatible with using competitive cultivars. Other work has identified wheat cultivars that do not benefit from increased density (Korres & Froud‐Williams, 2002). This may indicate gaps in our understanding, although it could also mean that, in some circumstances, low‐density stands are able to intercept light as well as denser stands. Although some work suggests competitive ranking does not change with weed density (Cousens & Fletcher, 1990), other studies suggest that some traits, such as tillering ability, may vary in effectiveness depending on weed density that could explain differences between study results (Mason et al., 2008).

The interactions between cultivar traits and other cultural control options are complex and will also interact with weather (see below). Predicting the relative benefit of contrasting combinations of cultivar, sowing date and seed rate will require the application of mechanistic models of crop/weed competition (Kropff & Spitters, 1992; Deen et al., 2003; Storkey & Cussans, 2007).

Screening for competitive ability

The idea of developing a ranking system for competitiveness of cultivars has been around for the past two decades. A screening protocol that predicts the competitive ability of cultivars would ideally be based on simple and rapid assessment of a selection of suitable traits (Cousens & Fletcher, 1990; Olesen et al., 2004). Such grading of cultivars should provide farmers with criteria to use when making management decisions (Lemerle et al., 2001). It would be more practical than current procedures, where cultivars would require many years of testing over a variety of conditions to get an accurate measure of suppressive ability (Brain et al., 1999). Farmers wishing to select a competitive cultivar often find that information on competitive ability is limited or based on subjective opinion.

Hansen et al. (2008) were successful in producing predictive ranking criteria for suppressive ability in spring barley. It was developed based on four traits – red/far‐red light reflectance at growth stage 31, leaf area index at growth stage 65, angle of leaves and the length of the culm, and was validated independently. However, some changes in ranking were observed in this study during independent assessments in differing locations, weakening the predictions of suppression. Including additional early growth traits has the potential to improve screening protocols, as they may have an important role in determining the competitive ability of cultivars, but they have received relatively little attention.

Competitive traits vary in their impact between years (Christensen, 1995; Huel & Hucl, 1996; Cosser et al., 1997; Cousens & Mokhtari, 1998; Coleman et al., 2001; Vandeleur & Gill, 2004; Bertholdsson, 2005), due to crop or weed species response to weather conditions. Variations across locations have resulted in lack of congruence in identifying traits responsible for competitive ability (Cousens & Mokhtari, 1998; Roberts et al., 2001). Not all studies report such variation. Suppressive abilities were consistent for barley cultivars in different years (Didon & Hansson, 2002). Lemerle et al. (1996) found that results were constant across years and sites, despite different weather patterns, and suggest that the similarity in soil type may have had a bearing on this. The strength of predictions could be increased through the use of multiple traits, as different traits may have greater importance under particular conditions (Christensen, 1995; Mennan & Zandstra, 2005).

Conclusion: directions for future research

Many studies have illustrated the variation in competitive ability between cultivars. Traits that contribute to increased suppressive ability have been established, although the importance of these traits can vary between years. Further work would assist in clarifying the nature of the relationships between traits and competitive ability across sites and seasons. A rigorous screening protocol that ranks cultivars in a system similar to ranking for disease resistance would be most beneficial to farmers. Advice on how to best utilise competitive cultivars as part of an integrated weed management strategy would give growers more confidence in applying this approach.

Acknowledgements

This work was done as part of a project joint funded by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA). Rothamsted Research is a national institute of bioscience strategically funded by the BBSRC.

Andrew IKS, Storkey J & Sparkes DL (2015). A review of the potential for competitive cereal cultivars as a tool in integrated weed management. Weed Research 55, 239–248.

References

  1. Aerts R (1999) Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade‐offs and plant‐soil feedbacks. Journal of Experimental Botany 50, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  2. Appleby AP, Olson PD & Colbert DR (1976) Winter‐wheat yield reduction from interference by Italian ryegrass. Agronomy Journal 68, 463–466. [Google Scholar]
  3. Auskalniene O, Psibisauskiene G, Auskalnis A & Kadzys A (2010) Cultivar and plant density influence on weediness in spring barley crops. Zemdirbyste‐Agriculture 97, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertholdsson NO (2005) Early vigour and allelopathy – two useful traits for enhanced barley and wheat competitiveness against weeds. Weed Research 45, 94–102. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertholdsson NO (2011) Use of multivariate statistics to separate allelopathic and competitive factors influencing weed suppression ability in winter wheat. Weed Research 51, 273–283. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blackshaw RE (1994) Differential competitive ability of winter‐wheat cultivars against downy brome. Agronomy Journal 86, 649–654. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brain P, Wilson BJ, Wright KJ, Seavers GP & Caseley JC (1999) Modelling the effect of crop and weed on herbicide efficacy in wheat. Weed Research 39, 21–35. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cahill JF, Kembel SW & Gustafson DJ (2005) Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in Arabidopsis thaliana . Journal of Ecology 93, 958–967. [Google Scholar]
  9. Challaiah O, Burnside OC, Wicks GA & Johnson VA (1986) Competition between winter wheat (Triticum‐aestivum) cultivars and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Science 34, 689–693. [Google Scholar]
  10. Champion GT, Froud‐Williams RJ & Holland JM (1998) Interactions between wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar, row spacing and density and the effect on weed suppression and crop yield. Annals of Applied Biology 133, 443–453. [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen S (1995) Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Research 35, 241–247. [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen S, Rasmussen G & Olesen JE (1994) Differential weed suppression and weed control in winter wheat Arable Farming Under CAP Reform Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 40, 335–342. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK. [Google Scholar]
  13. Coleman RD, Gill GS & Rebetzke GJ (2001) Identification of quantitative trait loci for traits conferring weed competitiveness in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 1235–1246. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cosser ND, Gooding MJ, Thompson AJ & FroudWilliams RJ (1997) Competitive ability and tolerance of organically grown wheat cultivars to natural weed infestations. Annals of Applied Biology 130, 523–535. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cousens RD & Fletcher DJ (1990) Experimental design for screening competitiveness of crop cultivars. Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conference, 163–165, Adelaide, South Australia.
  16. Cousens RD & Mokhtari S (1998) Seasonal and site variability in the tolerance of wheat cultivars to interference from Lolium rigidum . Weed Research 38, 301–307. [Google Scholar]
  17. Damgaard C & Jensen BD (2002) Disease resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana increases the competitive ability and the predicted probability of long‐term ecological success under disease pressure. Oikos 98, 459–466. [Google Scholar]
  18. Davies DHK, Hoad S, Maskell PR & Topp K (2004) Looking at cereal varieties to help reduce weed control inputs Crop Protection in Northern Britain. Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, UK. [Google Scholar]
  19. Deen W, Cousens R, Warringa J et al (2003) An evaluation of four crop: weed competition models using a common data set. Weed Research 43, 116–129. [Google Scholar]
  20. Didon UME (2002) Variation between barley cultivars in early response to weed competition. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 188, 176–184. [Google Scholar]
  21. Didon UME & Bostrom U (2003) Growth and development of six barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp vulgare L.) cultivars in response to a model weed (Sinapis alba L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189, 409–417. [Google Scholar]
  22. Didon UME & Hansson ML (2002) Competition between six spring barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp vulgare L.) cultivars and two weed flora in relation to interception of photosynthetic active radiation. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 20, 257–274. [Google Scholar]
  23. Duke SO (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Management Science 68, 505–512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Exley DM & Snaydon RW (1992) Effects of nitrogen‐fertilizer and emergence date on root and shoot competition between wheat and blackgrass. Weed Research 32, 175–182. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fargione J & Tilman D (2006) Plant species traits and capacity for resource reduction predict yield and abundance under competition in nitrogen‐limited grassland. Functional Ecology 20, 533–540. [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of resource competition in plant communities In: Perspectives on Plant Competition (eds Grace JB. & Tilman D.), 27–45. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg DE & Fleetwood L (1987) Competitive effect and response in 4 annual plants. Journal of Ecology 75, 1131–1143. [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldberg DE & Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response – hierachies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. Journal of Ecology 79, 1013–1030. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gooding MJ, Thompson AJ & Davies WP (1993) Interception of photosynthetically active radiation, competitive ability and yield of organically grown wheat varieties In: Physiology of Varieties Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 34 (eds White E, Kettlewell PS, Parry MA. & Ellis RP.), 355–362. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK. [Google Scholar]
  30. Grace JB (1990) On the relationship between plant traits and competitive ability In: Perspectives on Plant Competition (eds Grace JB. & Tilman D.), 51–66. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  31. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for existence of 3 primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist 111, 1169–1194. [Google Scholar]
  32. Grime JP (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Wiley, Chichester, UK. [Google Scholar]
  33. Grime JP (2001) Plant Strategies: Vegetation Processes and Ecosystem Properties, 2nd edn Wiley, New York, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
  34. Grundy AC, Froud‐Williams RJ & Boatman ND (1997) The control of weeds in cereals using an integrated approach In: Optimising Cereal Inputs: Its Scientific Basis Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 50 (eds Gooding MJ. & Shewry PR.), 367–374. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hansen PK, Kristensen K & Willas J (2008) A weed suppressive index for spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) varieties. Weed Research 48, 225–236. [Google Scholar]
  36. Heap IM (1997) The occurrence of herbicide‐resistant weeds worldwide. Pesticide Science 51, 235–243. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoad SP, Davies DHK & Topp CFE (2006) How to select varieties for organic farming: science and practice In: What Will Organic Farming Deliver? Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 79 (eds Atkins C, Ball B, Davies DHK, Rees R, Russell G, Stockdale EA, Watson CA, Walker R. & Younie D.), 117–120. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hoad S, Topp C & Davies K (2008) Selection of cereals for weed suppression in organic agriculture: a method based on cultivar sensitivity to weed growth. Euphytica 163, 355–366. [Google Scholar]
  39. Huel DG & Hucl P (1996) Genotypic variation for competitive ability in spring wheat. Plant Breeding 115, 325–329. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jordan N (1993) Prospects for weed‐control through crop‐interference. Ecological Applications 3, 84–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kirkland KJ & Hunter JH (1991) Competitiveness of Canada prairie spring wheats with wild oat (Avena fatua L). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71, 1089–1092. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kolbe W (1980) Effect of weed control on grain yield of different winter barley cultivars with reference to sowing time, seed rate and seed size, in long‐term trials at Hofchen and Laacherhof Experimental Stations (1968‐1980). Pflanzenschutz‐Nachrichten Bayer 33, 203–219. [Google Scholar]
  43. Korres NE & Froud‐Williams RJ (2002) Effects of winter wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological characteristics of naturally occurring weed flora. Weed Research 42, 417–428. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kropff MJ & Spitters CJT (1992) An ecophysiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar‐beet. 1. Model description and parameterization. Weed Research 32, 437–450. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kropff MJ, Spitters CJT, Schnieders BJ, Joenje W & Degroot W (1992) An ecophysiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar‐beet. 2. Model evaluation. Weed Research 32, 451–463. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lamb EG, Shore BH & Cahill JF (2007) Water and nitrogen addition differentially impact plant competition in a native rough fescue grassland. Plant Ecology 192, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lemerle D, Verbeek B, Cousens RD & Coombes NE (1996) The potential for selecting wheat varieties strongly competitive against weeds. Weed Research 36, 505–513. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lemerle D, Gill GS, Murphy CE et al (2001) Genetic improvement and agronomy for enhanced wheat competitiveness with weeds. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 527–548. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lucas Bueno CD & Froud‐Williams RJ (1994) The role of varietal selection for enhanced crop competitiveness in winter wheat Arable Farming Under CAP Reform Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 40, 343–350. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lutman PJW, Moss S, Cook SK & Welham SJ (2013) A review of the effects of crop agronomy on the management of Alopecurus myosuroides . Weed Research 53, 299–313. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mason H, Goonewardene L & Spaner D (2008) Competitive traits and the stability of wheat cultivars in differing natural weed environments on the northern Canadian Prairies. Journal of Agricultural Science 146, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mennan H & Zandstra BH (2005) Effect of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars and seeding rate on yield loss from Galium aparine (cleavers). Crop Protection 24, 1061–1067. [Google Scholar]
  53. Miller TE & Werner PA (1987) Competitive effects and responses between plant‐species in a 1st‐year old‐field community. Ecology 68, 1201–1210. [Google Scholar]
  54. Moonen AC & Bàrberi P (2008) Functional biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 127, 7–21. [Google Scholar]
  55. Moss SR (1985) The influence of crop variety and seed rate on Alopecurus myosuroides competition in winter cereals. In: Proceedings 1985 British Crop Protection Conference, Weeds 701–708. BCPC, Alton, UK.
  56. Moss S, Storkey J, Cussans JW, Perryman SAM & Hewitt MV (2004) The Broadbalk long‐term experiment at Rothamsted: what has it told us about weeds? Weed Science 52, 864–873. [Google Scholar]
  57. Moss SR, Marshall R, Hull R & Alarcon‐Reverte R (2011) Current status of herbicide‐resistant weeds in the United Kingdom. Aspects of Applied Biology 106, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  58. O'Donovan JT, Harker KN, Clayton GW & Hall LM (2000) Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technology 14, 624–629. [Google Scholar]
  59. Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ogg AG & Seefeldt SS (1999) Characterizing traits that enhance the competitiveness of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Science 47, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  61. Olesen JE, Hansen PK, Berntsen J & Christensen S (2004) Simulation of above‐ground suppression of competing species and competition tolerance in winter wheat varieties. Field Crops Research 89, 263–280. [Google Scholar]
  62. Paynter BH & Hills AL (2009) Barley and rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) competition is influenced by crop cultivar and density. Weed Technology 23, 40–48. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rebetzke GJ & Richards RA (1999) Genetic improvement of early vigour in wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 291–301. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rebetzke GJ, Botwright TL, Moore CS, Richards RA & Condon AG (2004) Genotypic variation in specific leaf area for genetic improvement of early vigour in wheat. Field Crops Research 88, 179–189. [Google Scholar]
  65. Reeves TG & Brooke HD (1977) The effect of genotype and phenotype on the competition between wheat and annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaud.). In: Sixth Asian‐Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Vol. 1. 167–172, Jakarta, Indonesia.
  66. Roberts JR, Peeper TF & Solie JB (2001) Wheat (Triticum aestivum) row spacing, seeding rate, and cultivar affect interference from rye (Secale cereale). Weed Technology 15, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  67. Satorre EH & Snaydon RW (1992) A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Research 32, 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  68. Seavers GP & Wright KJ (1997) Influence of crop growth habit and canopy development on weed suppression In: Optimising Cereal Inputs: Its Scientific Basis Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 50 (eds Gooding MJ. & Shewry PR.), 361–366. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK. [Google Scholar]
  69. Seefeldt SS, Ogg AG & Hou YS (1999) Near‐isogenic lines for Triticum aestivum height and crop competitiveness. Weed Science 47, 316–320. [Google Scholar]
  70. Siddique KHM, Belford RK, Perry MW & Tennant D (1989) Growth, development and light interception of old and modern wheat cultivars in a mediterranean‐type environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 40, 473–487. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sinclair TR (1998) Historical changes in harvest index and crop nitrogen accumulation. Crop Science 38, 638–643. [Google Scholar]
  72. Smith RG, Mortensen DA & Ryan MR (2010) A new hypothesis for the functional role of diversity in mediating resource pools and weed‐crop competition in agroecosystems. Weed Research 50, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
  73. Stevanato P, Trebbi D, Bertaggia M et al (2011) Root traits and competitiveness against weeds in sugar beet. International Sugar Journal 113, 497–501. [Google Scholar]
  74. Stone MJ, Cralle HT, Chandler JM, Bovey RW & Carson KH (1998) Above‐ and belowground interference of wheat (Triticum aestivum) by Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Science 46, 438–441. [Google Scholar]
  75. Storkey J & Cussans JW (2007) Reconciling the conservation of in‐field biodiversity with crop production using a simulation model of weed growth and competition. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 122, 173–182. [Google Scholar]
  76. Storkey J, Meyer S, Still KS & Leuschner C (2012) The impact of agricultural intensification and land‐use change on the European arable flora. Proceedings of the Royal Society B‐Biological Sciences 279, 1421–1429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Stratonovitch P, Storkey J & Semenov AA (2012) A process‐based approach to modelling impacts of climate change on the damage niche of an agricultural weed. Global Change Biology 18, 2071–2080. [Google Scholar]
  78. Travlos IS (2012) Reduced herbicide rates for an effective weed control in competitive wheat cultivars. International Journal of Plant Production 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  79. Vandeleur RK & Gill GS (2004) The impact of plant breeding on the grain yield and competitive ability of wheat in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55, 855–861. [Google Scholar]
  80. Violle C, Navas M‐L, Vile D et al (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116, 882–892. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang P, Stieglitz T, Zhou DW & Cahill JF (2010) Are competitive effect and response two sides of the same coin, or fundamentally different? Functional Ecology 24, 196–207. [Google Scholar]
  82. Watson PR, Derksen DA & Van Acker RC (2006) The ability of 29 barley cultivars to compete and withstand competition. Weed Science 54, 783–792. [Google Scholar]
  83. Weiner J & Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47, 211–222. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wicks GA, Ramsel RE, Nordquist PT, Schmidt JW & Challaiah O (1986) Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agronomy Journal 78, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
  85. Wicks GA, Nordquist PT, Baenziger PS et al (2004) Winter wheat cultivar characteristics affect annual weed suppression. Weed Technology 18, 988–998. [Google Scholar]
  86. Worthington M & Reberg‐Horton C (2013) Breeding cereal crops for enhanced weed suppression: optimizing allelopathy and competitive ability. Journal of Chemical Ecology 39, 213–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Worthington M, Reberg‐Horton C, Jordan D & Murphy JP (2013) A comparison of methods for evaluating the suppressive ability of winter wheat cultivars against Italian Ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Weed Science 61, 491–499. [Google Scholar]
  88. Wu H, Pratley J, Lemerle D & Haig T (1999) Crop cultivars with allelopathic capability. Weed Research 39, 171–180. [Google Scholar]
  89. Zerner MC, Gill GS & Vandeleur RK (2008) Effect of height on the competitive ability of wheat with oats. Agronomy Journal 100, 1729–1734. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Weed Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES