The Efficacy of some Herbicides and Cultivation on Weed Control and Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) Yield

Document Type : Research Article


Guilan University


Introduction: Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) represents considerable diversity in vigorous potential depending on field management practices, such as herbicides application which is an effective option in rapeseed production. Herbicides types determine time and application method; thereby utilizing different types of herbicides influences competitive ability of rapeseed against weeds and subsequently alters the outcome of the competition depending on agro-ecological conditions and existent weed populations. Moreover, response to different type of herbicides can vary among weed populations, and one or more population might be more constrained, which would change the weed population dynamics. This experiment was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of some preplant, preemergence and postemergence registered herbicides (in Iran) besides cultivation on weed control and rapeseed yield.
Materials and Methods: A randomized complete block design with 20 treatments each in three replications was established in Mahidasht region of Kermanshah Province. The treatments included preplant soil incorporated application of trifluralin+ postemergence application of haloxyfop (treatment 1), preplant soil incorporated application of trifluralin+ postemergence application of sethoxydim (treatment 2), preemergence application of pendimethalin + postemergence application of haloxyfop (treatment 3), preemergence application of pendimethalin + postemergence application of sethoxydim (treatment 4), postemergence application of clopyralid + postemergence application of haloxyfop (treatment 5), postemergence application of clopyralid + postemergence application of sethoxydim (treatment 6), postemergence application of clopyralid + postemergence application of cycloxydim (treatment 7), postemergence application of clopyralid + postemergence application of clethodim (treatment 8), postemergence application of clopyralid + postemergence application of cycloxydim quizalofop (treatment 9), postemergence application of clopyralid + postemergence application of fluazifop (treatment 10), postemergence application of haloxyfop (treatment 11),postemergence application of sethoxydim (treatment 12), postemergence application of cycloxydim (treatment 13), postemergence application of clethodim (treatment 14),  postemergence application of quizalofop (treatment 15),  postemergence application of fluazifop (treatment 16), one (treatment 17) and two cultivation (treatment 18), and weed infested (treatment 19) and weed free (treatment 20) conditions.
Results and Discussion: The results revealed that the clopyralid application with grass herbicides effectively reduced both density and dry weight of broadleaf weeds. Clopyralid application along with haloxyfop-methyl decreased wheat (as a weed in canola, and the prior crop in the field) density and dry weight as much as weed-free conditions. Applying clopyralid with other grass herbicides also resulted in significant reduction compared to weed infested control. Application of trifluralin and pendimethalin with each of haloxyfop and sethoxydim was not significantly different in terms of density and dry weight of broadleaf weeds and total weeds (total weed-plants except wheat), and also density of total weed-plants (including wheat). Thus, they caused substantially reduction in density and dry weight of broadleaf weeds and total weed-plants. However, they were not as effective as weed free treatment. As compared with sethoxydim, application of Haloxyfop accompanied by either trifluralin  or pendimenthalin was more effective for wheat control (as a weed); as density and dry weight of wheat and dry weight of total weed-plants in treatments of trifluralin along with haloxyfop were significantly lower than with sethoxydim. Using acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors alone which did not control the broad-leaf weeds properly. The haloxyfop caused a higher decrease in density and dry weight of wheat (as a weed), while the least impact was found for fluazifop. The effect of twice cultivation on weed density and dry weight was not significantly different from once cultivation, therefore, weed density and dry weight were higher than weed free condition. However, they were less than weed-infested condition. In general, Although none of the treatments were able to decrease total weed-plants (including wheat as a weed) density and dry weight up to the weed-free condition, but applying clopyralid with grass herbicides considerably reduced the total weed density (total weed-plants minus weeds) as well as the level of weed-free conditions. For canola traits, hand weeding treatment showed superiority to the other treatments. The magnitude of loss occurred in plant height, biological yield, grain yield, harvest index, Silique number per plant, grain number per plant, 1000-grain weight and grain oil percentage was 26, 48, 81, 63, 59, 6, 51, and 5 %, respectively. The maximum reduction in rapeseed measured traits was observed to be 7 % for clopyralid applied along with haloxyfop, 11 % for quizalofop, 16 % for fluazifop, 17 % for clethodim, and 20 % for the other grass herbicides. Using trifluralin and pendimethalin with each of haloxyfop and sethoxydim was not significantly different from the individual application of acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors; and consequently it does not appear to be an appropriate option.
Conclusion: Weed competition not only reduces grain yield, but also grain oil (5% loss). Since a yield reduction between 5% and 10% is acceptable with herbicide application, it is possible to utilize clopyralid along with haloxyfop-methyl in rapeseed fields particularly where wheat has been previously cultivated.


1- Anonymous. 2018. Annual Agricultural Statistics. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran. (Available a (In Persian)
2- Azizi M., Soltani D., and Khavari E. 1999. Rapeseed: Physiology, Agronomy, Breeding, and Biotechnology. Jihad-e-Daneshghahi of Mashhad Publication. PP 230. (In Persian)
3- Bagherani N., and Shimi P. 2001: Evaluation of some herbicides for weed control in oil rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources 8: 157-163. (In Persian with English abstract)
4- Blackshaw R.E. and Harker K.N. 1992. Combined post emergence grass and broadleaved weed control in canola (Brassica napus L.). Weed Technology 6: 892-897.
5- Blackshaw R.E., Anderson G.W., and Dekker J. 1987. Interference of Sinapis arvensis L. and Chenopodium album L. in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Weed Research 27: 207-213.
6- Blackshaw R.E., Lemerle D., Mailer R. and Young K.R. 2002. Influence of wild radish on yield and quality of canola. Weed Science 50: 344-349.
7- Clayton G.W., Harker K.N., O’donovan J.T., Baig M.N., and Kidnie M.J. 2002. Glyphosate timing and tillage system effects on glyphosate-tolerant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technology 16: 124-130.
8- Daugovish O., Thill D.C., and Shafii B. 2002. Competition between wild oat (Avena fatua) and yellow mustard (Sinapis alba) or canola (Brassica napus). Weed Science 50: 587-594.
9- Firouzi H., Mirshekari B., and Khorshidi Benam M.B. 2011. Assessment of interference of growing period of amarant (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and lambs quarter (Chenopodium album) on yield and its components of rapeseed. Journal of Crop and Weed Ecophysiology 5(2): 1-10. (In Persian with English abstract)
10- Harker K.N. 2001: Survey of yield losses due to weeds in Central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 81: 339-342.
11- Harker K.N., O'Donovan J.T., Smith E.G., Johnson E.N., Peng G., Willenborg C.J., and Grenkow L.A. 2014. Seed size and seeding rate effects on canola emergence, development, yield and seed weight. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 95(1): 1-8.
12- Hucl P. 1998. Response to weed control by four spring rapeseed genotypes differing in competitive ability. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 78: 171-173.
13- Ibrahim A.F., Shaban Sh.A., and El‐Metwally El.A. 1987. Effect of some Herbicides on Oil Seed Rape (Brassica Napus L.) and Associated Weeds. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 158: 236-240.
14- Koocheki A., Fallahpour F., Khorramdel S., and Jafari L. 2014. Intercropping wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with canola (Brassica napus L.) and their effects on yield, yield components, weed density and diversity. Journal of Agroecology 6(1): 11-20. (In Persian with English abstract)
15- Krawczyk R., and Adamczewski K. 2002: Early post emergence applications of Butisan Star 416 SC for broad leaf weed control in winter oil seed rape. Progress in Plant Protection 42: 505-507.
16- Martin S.F., Van Acker R.C., and Friesen L.F. 2001. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Science 49: 326-333.
17- Miri H.R., and Rahimi Y. 2009. Effect of some new herbicides on rapeseed weed control in Boushehr province. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology 1(1):49-64. (In Persian with English abstract)
18- Mirshekari B. 2010. Study effects of different times of weeds control on morphological traits, yield and harvest index of three winter rapeseed cultivars. Electronical Journal of Crop Production 4(4): 51-66. (In Persian with English abstract)
19- Mitrovic P., Marinkovic R., Marisavljevic D., Pavlovic D., and Dolovac E.P. 2013. Using herbicides in spring rapeseed and effect on quantity and quality parameters of yield. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences 76(3): 561-564.
20- Moriles J., Hansen S., Horvath D.P., Reicks G., Clay D.E., and Clay S.A. 2012. Microarray and growth analyses identify differences and similarities of early corn response to weeds, shade and nitrogen stress. Weed Science 602: 158-166.
21- Mulugeta D., and Boerboom C.M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate - resistant Glycine max. Weed Science 48: 35-42.
22- Nelson J.J., Glogoza P., MaCrae I., Oelke E., and Meronuk R. 2000. Crop profile for canola in Minnesota. Minnesota Canola Council, USA.
23- Pacanoski Z. 2014. Application time and herbicide rate effects on weeds in oilseed rape (Brassica napus var. oleifera). Herbologia 14 (1): 2014.
24- Safikhani S., Biabani A., Faraji A., Rahemi A., and Gholizadeh A. 2015. Response of some agronomic characteristics of canola (Brassica napus L.) to nitrogen fertilizer and sowing date. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology 9(3): 429-446. (In Persian with English abstract)
25- Salimi H., Ahmadi M.A., Barjesteh A., Hatami S., Delghandi M.R., Fereidoonpoor M.R., Ghanbaribirgani D., Narimani V., Yunesabadi M., Nazerkakhki S.H. and Sajedi S. 2004. Identification, density and phenology of dominant weeds of canola fields in ten provinces of Iran. 16th Plant Protection Congress, Iran, p.538. (In Persian with English abstract)
26- Senior I.J., and Bavage A.D. 2003. Comparison of genetically modified and conventionally derived herbicide tolerance in oilseed rape: A case study. Euphytica 132: 217–226.
27- Shimi P., Darvish N., Mighani F. 2014a. Investigating efficiency of new Butisan Star (metazachlor + qinmerac) herbicide to weeds control in canola. Crop Improvement Research 6(1): 31-38. (In Persian with English abstract)
28- Shimi P., Pourazar R., Ghezeli F., and Sasanfar H.2014b. Efficiency of two commercial forms of clopyralid at different doses in controlling canola weeds. Iranian Journal of Weed Science 10(2): 145-153. (In Persian with English abstract)
29- Somani L.I. 1992. Dictionary of weed science. Agronomy Publishing Academy (India). 256 pp
30- Swanton C.J., Harker K.N., and Anderson R.L. 1993: Crop losses due to weeds in Canada. Weed Technology 7: 537-542.
31- Zand E., Baghestani M.A., Nezamabadi N., Shimi P., and Mousavi S.K. 2017. A Guide to Chemical Control of Weeds in Iran, with the approach of shifting flora, Fifth edition. Jdmpress. 223pp. (In Persian with English abstract)
32- Zohrabi A., Naderidarbaghshahi M., and Jalalizand A. 2012. Chemical weed control of autumnal rapeseed in Isfahan (Iran). International Journal of AgriScience 2(8): 696-701. (In Persian with English abstract)