Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro

Can irrigation systems alter the critical period for weed control in
onion cropping?
Matheus de Freitas Souza a, Hamurábi Anizio Lins a, *, Hélida Campos de Mesquita b,
Taliane Maria da Silva Teófilo a, Laís Tereza Rego Torquato Reginaldo a,
Ruana Karoline Viana Pereira a, Leilson Costa Grangeiro a, Daniel Valadão Silva a
a
Department of Agronomic and Forest Sciences, Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, Mossoró, RN, Brazil
b
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Norte, Apodi, RN, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Weed management is essential in vegetable crops, constituting the main production cost. Cultural control stra­
Allium cepa L. tegies can help minimize weed interference and decrease the critical period for weed control (CPWC) when well
Drip system implemented. Localized nutrient and water supply may favor crop growth, suppressing weeds, and reducing the
Weed interference
CPWC. We hypothesized that the drip system reduces the CPWC compared to the micro-sprinkler system and may
Micro-sprinkler system
be recommended as a cultural control method. To support our hypothesis, the objective was to determine the
CPWC in onion cultivated under drip or micro-sprinkler during three cropping seasons. Field experiments were
conducted during 2016, 2017, and 2018 to evaluate the effects of drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation had on the
CPWC in onion (Allium cepa L.). The coexistence of weed in the onion lifecycle significantly reduced the bulb
yield for both irrigation systems. The reduction by weed infestation in relative onion bulb yield for the drip
system was 61.8, 80.9, and 97.6% in 2016, 2017, and 2018 seasons, respectively. For micro-sprinkler systems,
the reduction was 89.2, 85.2, and 98.6% in the 2016, 2017, and 2018 seasons, respectively. The CPWC varied
according to the irrigation system and season. For example, in a drip system, the CPWC was 11, 17, and 74 days
for 2016, 2017, and 2018. In the micro-sprinkler system, the CPWC was 18, 53, and 45 days in 2016, 2017, and
2018. The predominant weed community determines the irrigation system (drip or micro-sprinkler) that pro­
motes better cultural weed control and reduction of the CPWC in onion cropping systems.

1. Introduction
Onion (Allium cepa L.) belongs to the Alliaceae family and can form
bulbs consumed by people “in nature” or processed food. This vegetable
is a critical crop with 78 million tons produced by the top 20 countries
worldly (FAO, 2018). In Brazil, the annual area cultivated with onion is
close to 60,000 ha, generating a production of 1.6 million tons per year
(IBGE, 2019).
Weed management is essential for the productive success of the
onion crop. Onion farmers usually face two challenges that can hinder
successful weed control. First, onion has slow initial growth and tubular
leaf architecture, which results in a lower competitive ability to capture
resources (Herrmann et al., 2017). Second, few herbicides are available
for post-emergence applications, requiring manual weed control in
many situations, which increases production costs (Herrmann et al.,
2017).
A study showed that weeds growth for 15 days after onion emer­
gence resulted in a 45% reduction in bulb yield. If this coexistence
persisted for 35 days, the productivity loss reached 96% (Bond and
Burston, 1996). Furthermore, Dunan et al. (1996) reported a bulb yield
loss of 94% in onion cropping systems when weeds remained in the area
for 1600 thermal time units – TTUs (equivalent to 42 days after crop
emergence). The main damage caused by weed interference to onion
crop is the reduction in bulb diameter and weight, resulting in low yield
per acre (Haque et al., 2011). The first step in minimizing weed inter­
ference by competition or allelopathy in onion culture is determining
the critical period for weeds control (CPWC). The CPWC is the period
when weeds should be removed from the cultivation area to ensure the
maximum yield of a crop. This period is not fixed, and it depends directly
on the degree of interference of the weed community to the established

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hamurabi_a_@hotmail.com (H.A. Lins).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105457
Received 3 February 2020; Received in revised form 4 September 2020; Accepted 2 November 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
0261-2194/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Freitas Souza et al.
cultivation conditions. Therefore, the CPWC must be defined for
different crops and agricultural conditions (Knezevic and Datta, 2015).
The degree of weed interference, and consequently, the CPWC, can
be reduced by adopting good agricultural practices that favor the rapid
development of the crop (Blackshaw et al., 2007). This fact occurs
because the quick canopy closing prevents weed development due to
shading. Also, the growth resources available to the weeds become
limited when the crop covers the area. Using these farming practices of
crop growth to reduce weed interference and CPWC is known as the
“cultural control method.” Cultural weed control is an integral part of
integrated weed management. When crop control is appropriately
implemented, herbicide application can be reduced (Blackshaw et al.,
2007).
Among these agricultural practices, a localized supply of water and
nutrients favors the quick establishment of crops and minimizes the
harmful effects of weed communities (Kaur et al., 2018). Tursun et al.
(2015) reported that increasing the localized nitrogen fertilizer appli­
cation reduced the CPWC in cotton (Gossypium hirsitum L.) by 7 and 16
days, during 2012 and 2013, respectively. Another practice that can
reduce CPWC is reducing the space between adjacent rows to accelerate
the closure of the crop canopy and shading of the area (Tursun et al.,
2016). Reducing row spacing of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from
76 to 19 cm delayed the CPWC by 15 days, resulting from a decrease in
the weeds’ competitive ability (Knezevic et al., 2003). Other practices,
such as seeding rate and selection of competitive cultivars, have also
proven to be efficient cultural control methods (Jha et al., 2017). Also,
herbicides applied in preemergence delay the CPWR (Knezevic et al.,
2019). These successful weed control cases demonstrate that alterna­
tives based on cultural management can ensure greater economic and
environmental sustainability of crops.
Few published papers have sought to understand how agricultural
practices can aid in weed control in onion (Souza et al., 2016; Bond and
Burston, 1996; Dunan et al., 1996). However, agronomic practices must
be fully understood, considering the dynamism and complexity of the
weed community. Poor implementation of cultural weed management
can result in substantial productivity losses. Cases of unsuccessful weed
management have also been reported. For example, the tillage system
was not efficient in reducing the CPWC in monoculture maize (Zea mays
L.) cropping (Halford et al., 2001). Price et al. (2018) evaluated the
CPWC in cotton under different cropping systems. They observed that
the effect of tillage, planting, and crop cover on CPWC varied between
years, which could be attributed to the weed community present in each
crop season.
The agricultural practices are crucial for CPWC because they directly
affect the weed interference degree. Besides, in irrigated crops, the type
of water supply system employed must be considered. Currently, there is
a worldwide concern about the management and conservation of water
resources. Localized irrigation has been increasingly employed in
several cropping systems to optimize water use in rural areas (Mahgoub
et al., 2017). Among the localized irrigation methods, drip irrigation has
been particularly useful (Mahgoub et al., 2017). Another commonly
used system for onion crop is micro-sprinkler irrigation (Mahgoub et al.,
2017). Several studies have demonstrated that these irrigation systems
can ensure high yields in onion crop. However, no information is
available regarding the weed interference degree in drip or
micro-sprinkler systems of onion culture. The volume and manner in
which water is applied in drip and micro-sprinkler systems are different.
Hence, the weed interference degree may vary between these systems,
consequently altering the CPWC of onion crops. We hypothesized that
drip irrigation reduces the CPWC compared to the micro-sprinkler sys­
tem and can be recommended as a method of cultural control. To sup­
port our hypothesis, this work’s objective was to determine the CPWC in
onion cultivated under drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation systems for
studies carried out in Brazil during three cropping seasons.
2
Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the area and onion cultivation system
Field studies were conducted at the experimental farm “Rafael Fer­
nandes”, located in the state of Rio Grande do Norte - RN, Brazil
(5◦ 03′ 37′′ S, 37◦ 23′ 50′′ W Gr), from July to November 2016, 2017, and
2018. The approximate altitude was 72 m, and the climate is classified as
dry, with high temperatures and a rainy season in summer (DdAa’),
according to Thornthwaite (Carmo Filho et al., 1991). Cashew (Ana­
cardium occidentale L.) had been cultivated, for fruit and nut production,
in the experimental field for five years, following which the area was
under fallow for ten years. The average meteorological data (rainfall,
temperature, and relative humidity) during and out of the experimental
period were collected and are presented in Fig. A1 and A2. The soil was
classified as abrupt eutrophic red-yellow latosol, with sandy loam
texture (62% sand, 4% silt, and 24% clay) (Embrapa, 2018). Samples
were collected for physicochemical analyses, the results of which are
shown in Table A3.
The onion was cultivated in a conventional system, including tillage
and formation of beds using a rotating hoe during all years, which was
similar to the method employed by local farmers. Each bed was 1.20 m
wide and 0.20 m high. Fertilizer was applied according to the onion crop
requirements (Higashikawa and Menezes Júnior, 2017) and based on
soil analysis.
Pre-planting fertilizer application was performed with 180 kg ha− 1 of
P2O5 (simple superphosphate), 3.0 kg ha− 1 zinc (zinc sulfate), and 1.10
kg ha− 1 of boron (boric acid). Also, cover fertilizer application with 165
kg ha− 1 of nitrogen (monoammonium phosphate) and 30 kg of K2O ha− 1
(potassium chloride) was undertaken in two fertigation, during all three
cropping seasons, using a tank of derivation. Cultural practices and
phytosanitary control were carried out according to the technical rec­
ommendations and crop requirements.
The hybrid onion “Rio das Antas” (cultivar adapted to the Brazilian
semi-arid and widely planted) was used for the experiments. Three seeds
were manually sown per planting station. The spacing between rows was
10 cm, and between plants was 6 cm. Ten days after emergence (DAE),
thinning was undertaken to guarantee a population of 890,000 plants
ha− 1 in the experimental area.
2.2. Calculation of the required water volume and procedures for
application in drip and micro-sprinkler systems
In the drip system, the irrigation lines were installed in the middle of
two cultivation lines, a spacing of 0.2 m between lines, and 0.30 m
between drippers was maintained. The micro-sprinklers were installed
between the beds and spaced 1.0 m × 1.0 m apart. The flow rate of
drippers and micro-sprinklers was 1.5 L h− 1 and 54 L h− 1, respectively.
Thirty subsamples (zig-zag sampling) in each block were performed to
compose a soil sampling and determine the soil water storage capacity in
each experimental block. The soil water storage capacity for irrigation
was estimated according to suggest by Gee and Dodson (1981).
After sowing, initial irrigation was carried out by the sprinkler sys­
tem to raise the soil moisture to 80% of the field capacity in the entire
experimental area. For all subsequent applications during the onion
lifecycle, the water volume was calculated according to the irrigation
system (drip or micro-sprinkler). The volume of water to be applied was
estimated considering daily evapotranspiration (ETo) as well as co­
efficients (Kc) for onion at different developmental stages (Marouelli
et al., 2005). The calculation of ETo was performed following the Har­
greaves and Samani (1985) method, and the data are shown in Appendix
A. Supplementary data (Table A4). This procedure was repeated over the
three years without the need to include daily rainfall, as no rainfall was
recorded, which is common in the state of Rio Grande do Norte from
April to December. In 2016, 2017, and 2018, the water required was
calculated as 667, 683, and 688 mm, respectively, during 110 days of
M. Freitas Souza et al.
onion cultivation. The onion lifecycle takes approximately 120 days;
however, Marouelli et al. (2005) have recommended the suspension of
irrigation ten days before harvest (regarded as the onion maturation
stage).
In the micro-sprinkler system, the 1-day irrigation shift was used
throughout the season. The daily applied water varied according to the
ETc (ETo x Kc) value of the previous day. The irrigation time was
calculated according to the spacing, flow, and the efficiency of the
micro-sprinklers system. An efficiency of 80% was considered for the
micro-sprinklers (Koumanov et al., 1997). The water volume applied by
the drip system was determined based on the volume used in the
micro-sprinkler system. The time and duration of the irrigations in the
drip were adjusted to specific conditions of climate and drip system.
Drip efficiency was established as 95% (Camp, 1998). Considering the
previous procedures, the spacing between drippers and irrigation hoses,
and the drippers’ flow, the water to be applied in the drip system was
50% less than in the micro-sprinkler system. This procedure was
employed during all three years of onion cultivation.
2.3. Treatments and experimental design
Three experiments were conducted during the 2016, 2017, and 2018
seasons. We adopted a split-plot scheme in a randomized complete block
design. Each plot had three replicates. Two factors were used: the first
factor (plot) was the irrigation systems (drip and micro-sprinkler), and
the second factor (sub-plot) was the six periods of coexistence
(Competition) and weed control (No competition) with the crop.
The treatments of the second factor were implemented immediately
after the emergence of onion: (Competition) plots were maintained
without weeding during 0, 140, 280, 420, 560, 700 and 1425 growing
degree day (GDD) to evaluate the beginning of CPWC (Initial-CPWC);
(No competition) plots were kept weed free during 0, 140, 280, 420,
560, 700 and 1425 GDD by manual weeding to determine the end of
CPWC (End-CPCW). The detailed procedure and equation for calculating
the GDD is described in Appendix A. Supplementary data. The size of
each experimental plot was 2.70 m × 0.80 m, consisting of eight onion
rows. The useful area of each plot was 2.0 m × 0.60 m.
2.4. Data collection
The main weed species that emerged in the field during the experi­
mental period were: Amaranthus hybridus L., Blainvillea rhomboidea.
Cass., Tridax procumbens L., Soliva sessilis Ruiz & Pav., Ipomoea purpurea
(L.) Roth, Ipomoea triloba L., Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urb., Jacquemontia
tamnifolia (L.) Griseb., Aeschynomene rudis Benth., Senna obtusifolia (L.)
Irwin & Barneby, Centrosema pascuorum Benth, Sida rhombifolia L.,
Waltheria indica L., Mollugo verticillata L., Chloris barbata Sw., Dacty­
loctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd., Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P. Beauv., Digitaria
horizontalis Willd., Andropogon leucostachyus Kunth, Portulaca oleracea
L., Hybanthus calceolaria (L.) Oken, and Richardia brasiliensis Gomes.
Shoot part of weeds were collected in two sub-samples to compose a
sample for each experimental unit at 0, 140, 280, 420, 560, 700 and
1425 GDD. Weed sub-samples were collected in a 0.5 m × 0.5 m quadrat
randomly positioned per plot in the useful area of each plot. After
identification and enumeration of weeds, they were stored in paper bags
to determine the dry matter, using a forced circulation oven (62 ± 5 ◦ C).
The onion was harvested at 1425 GDD when the plants exhibited
yellowish leaves (popping stage) in the useful experimental plot. After
harvest, the bulbs were left in the field to mature for ten days. The bulbs
of each plot were then classified according to their diameter (non-
commercial and commercial bulbs, CEAGESP, 2001). The onion bulb
yield was estimated as kg ha− 1, considering the number and weight of
commercial bulbs in each experimental plot. For regression analysis, the
relative bulb yield (%) was calculated compared to the control treatment
(free of weeds during the whole cycle for two irrigation systems).
3
Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457
2.5. Statistical analyses
The analysis of models was performed using ‘drc’ package in R (Ritz
et al., 2015). The Weibull type 1 sigmoid with four parameters was
chosen as a model base for all treatments. The model is described below:
Y = Lower + (Upper − Lower)*exp( − exp(Slope(log(GDD) − log(ED50))))
where: Y is the response (e.g., relative yield); Lower and Upper are the
lower and upper limit; GDD is growing degree-day calculated after crop
emergence; ED50 is the GDD giving a 50% response between the upper
and lower limit, and Slope is the slope of the model.
Model selection considered the hypothesis for the similarity of
models in each year and irrigation systems. When not significant (p >
0.05), the test indicates that a single sigmoidal model explains the
relationship between the dependent and independent variables for both
irrigation systems. Instead, when significant (p < 0.05), the test in­
dicates that different sigmoidal models should be used to interpret the
data for each irrigation system. Details about model selection were
shown in Appendix A. Supplementary data. After model selection, the
GDD referring to a loss equal to 5% of relative yield was estimated
through models (Competition and no competition) to obtain the Initial-
CPWC and End-CPCW values in each irrigation system and year. The
CPWC was calculated by subtracting End-CPCW by Initial-CPWC. The
5% maximum yield loss was chosen because it is arbitrarily considered
the maximum acceptable loss. The ‘drc’ package permitted to extract the
GDD for 5% of maximum yield loss and its confidence interval (p <
0.05). The confidence interval was used to compare the drip and micro-
sprinkler systems. Data and graphical analyses were performed using R
version 3.6.1 (R Development Core Team, 2018).
3. Results
3.1. Density and dry matter of weeds
The density of weeds on 0, 140, 280, 420, 560, 700, and 1425 GDD
was not remarkably different in 2016 and 2017, regardless of the irri­
gation system (Fig. 1A and B). In 2018, unlike in the previous years, a
significant variation was observed in weed density for both irrigation
systems (Fig. 1A and B). At 140 GDD, the weed density in the drip system
was 4265 m− 2 plants, and at 1425 GDD, there was a reduction of 93.9%
(256 plants m− 2) at 1425 GDD (Fig. 1A). In the micro-sprinkler system,
the variation in weed density during the crop cycle was higher than that
in the drip system (Fig. 1A and B). At 140 GDD, the weed density in the
micro-sprinkler system was 7869 plants m− 2, which was reduced by
96.9% (250 plants m− 2) at 1425 GDD (Fig. 1B).
The total dry matter of weeds increased continuously up to 1425
GDD in both irrigation systems in 2016 and 2017 (Fig. 2). In the 2018
season, dry matter of weeds reached the maximum value at 700 GDD in
both irrigation systems. These values were 4000 g m− 2 and 3583 g m− 2
in the drip and micro-sprinkler systems (Fig. 2A and B). In 2016, the
I. purpurea and I. triloba (Convolvulaceae) accumulated the highest dry
matter in the drip irrigation system (Fig. 3A). In the micro-sprinkler
system, I. purpurea and I. triloba (Convolvulaceae), M. verticillata (Mol­
luginaceae), and W. indica (Malvaceae) accumulated higher dry matter
than other families (Fig. 3B). In 2018, the total dry matter was primarily
comprised by D. horizontalis and E. pilosa (Poaceae) in the micro-
sprinkler system (Fig. 3B). Only D. horizontalis, E. pilosa and C. barbata
(Poaceae) was observed in the drip at 1425 GDD, amounting to 2888 g
m− 2 (Fig. 3A) (see Table 1).
3.2. Weed interference on yield
The onion yields for all seasons were significantly reduced owing to
the presence of weeds. The most significant reduction in relative bulb
yield occurred in 2018 for drip and micro-sprinkler systems, with values
M. Freitas Souza et al. Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457

Fig. 1. Density of weeds (plants m− 2) in the onion fields under drip (A) and
micro-sprinkler (B) systems at increasing growing degree-day periods (GDD)
during 2016, 2017, and 2018 seasons. Bars indicate the standard error of
the mean.
Fig. 2. Dry matter of weeds (g m− 2) in the onion fields under drip (A) and
micro-sprinkler (B) systems at increasing growing degree-day periods (GDD)
during 2016, 2017, and 2018 seasons. Bars indicate the standard error of
the mean.

close to 0% (Table 2, Fig. 4). In 2016 and 2017, the relative yield was
4. Discussion
lower in the micro-sprinkler (9 and 12%, respectively) than in the drip
system (35 and 19%, respectively) after 120 days of competition with
4.1. Density and dry matter of weeds
the weed community (Table 2, Fig. 4).
Initial-CPWC, End-CPCW, and CPWC were estimated with an
The density and dry matter of weeds in 2016 was very low in both
acceptable yield loss of 5%. The Initial-CPCW for onion irrigated by the
irrigation systems, compared to the other years. After ten years of fal­
drip system in 2016 was 286 GDD, referent to 24 DAE, and the End-
lowing, the system may have reached an ecological balance. Even after
CPCW was 447 GDD, referent to 38 DAE, totaling 166 GDD (14 days)
the first disturbances in the system, only a few species were able to
of CPWC (Fig. 5). In 2017, the CPWC for drip was 20 days, with Initial-
germinate and colonize the area. Also, the species that germinated were
CPWC and End-CPWC equals to 9 and 29, respectively (Fig. 5). The
those predominant in the fallow area, indicating the effect of ecological
highest CPWC for the drip was observed in the 2018 season (857 GDD,
memory in the experimental area. Areas with few perturbations over
73 days) (Fig. 5). In this season, the extensive End-CPWC, equivalent to
time (similar to that used in this study) have the highest resilience to first
1005 GDD (90 DAE), raised the CPWC for the onion cultivated under the
disturbances (Johnstone et al., 2016).
drip system (Fig. 5).
In the last season of the experiment (2018), the density and dry
In the micro-sprinkler, there was no difference for Initial-CPWC be­
matter of weeds significantly increased compared to 2016 and 2017. In
tween 2016 and 2017, with a value equal to 113 GDD or 9 DAE (Fig. 5);
onion cropping systems, frequent soil tillage and fertilizer application
however, a delay was observed for the Initial-CPWC in 2018 (281 GDD,
may create favorable conditions in which several weed species break
24 DAE) (Fig. 5). In 2016, the End-CPWC was equivalent to 293 GDD (25
their dormancy and germinate in the soil (Nichols et al., 2015; Gaba
DAE), resulting in the lowest CPWC (185 GDD, 16 days) among all
et al., 2017). For example, the reduction of soil pH by fertilizers with
seasons (Fig. 5). The highest CPWC in the micro-sprinkler was observed
acid reaction (monoammonium phosphate) can break the dormancy of
in 2017 (689 GDD, 58 days), followed by in 2018 (500 GDD, 42 days)
numerous weed species (Tang et al., 2008; Kaur et al., 2018). Besides,
(Fig. 5). The CPWC was similar between drip and micro-sprinkler sys­
soil inversion, as implemented in onion cropping systems, may favor soil
tems in 2016 (Fig. 5). However, in 2017, CPWC was lower by 459 GDD
temperature oscillation, a primary factor for breaking seed dormancy of
(38 days) in the drip than the micro-sprinkler (Fig. 5). This behavior was
some species (Nichols et al., 2015).
reversed in 2018, when micro-sprinklers’ irrigation resulted in a lower
Despite the high initial weed density in 2018 for both irrigation
CPWC than in drip, with a difference of 357 GDD (31 days) (Fig. 5).
systems, the infestation decreased possibly due to the intraspecific and
interspecific competition among plants after 1425 GDD (Tursun et al.,
2015). After three seasons, onion cultivation favored the occurrence of
C. barbata, D. aegyptium, E. pilosa, and D. horizontalis, all characterized

4
M. Freitas Souza et al.
Fig. 3. Dry matter of weeds (g m− 2), classified by family at 1425 GDD, in onion fields under drip (A) and micro-sprinkler (B) systems during 2016, 2017, and
2018 seasons.
by the C4 carbon fixation cycle (Elmore and Paul, 1983).
4.2. Weed interference
The CPWC varied between the years for both irrigation systems. In
the 2016 season, weeds accumulated little dry matter in both drip and
micro-sprinkler systems. In addition to the low infestation density, the
I. purpurea, I. triloba (Convolvulaceae) and M. verticillata (Mollugina­
ceae) predominated in the drip and micro-sprinkler systems in 2016.
These weeds have low aggressiveness to extract water and nutrients
from the soil due to the quick suppression by the crop canopy cover
(Singh et al., 2012; Knezevic et al., 2003), resulting in a shorter CPWC in
the 2016 season for both irrigation systems.
The longer CPWC during 2017 than 2016 in the micro-sprinkler
system was observed due to the emergence of more competitive weed
species. Grasses dominated the areas in 2017. Unlike the weeds like
I. purpurea, I. triloba, M. verticillata, and W. indica, frequent in 2016,
grasses are more competitive for water and nutrients due to rapid
vegetative growth and high water use efficiency (Pinto et al., 2016). The
D. horizontalis already demonstrated a high ability to reduce soybean
and sorghum yield, even at low infestation density, compared to other
weed families (Galon et al., 2018; Guglielmini et al., 2017). Grasses
accumulate more dry matter, consequently reducing the water and nu­
trients available to the onion crop. This higher interference degree of the
5
Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457
weed community extended the CPWC in areas irrigated by the
micro-sprinkler system.
The beginning of weed control between drip and micro-sprinkler
systems was similar in 2017. However, this fact did not allow a
similar CPWC between irrigation systems due to the longer duration of
competition observed in micro-sprinkler (801 GDD, 67 days) compared
to drip (343 GDD, 29 days). Weeds accumulated less dry matter in drip
than in micro-sprinklers (30% less), suggesting less aggression from the
weed community. Even applying a lower water volume, the supply of
this resource close to the crop’s roots disfavored the growth of the
weeds, allowing the onion to grow, dominate and reduce the period
necessary for the control. The water applied in the micro-sprinkler may
be sufficient to sustain all plant community; however, the higher dry
matter accumulated by weeds in the micro-sprinkler possibly restricted
the availability of essential nutrients for onion, prolonging the period
needed for control (Hawkesford et al., 2016; Essa et al., 2017).
In the 2018 season, the weed competitiveness increased for both
irrigation systems. The relative onion yield of in the drip and micro-
sprinkler systems approached 0%, values much lower than those seen
in 2016 (30% and 10%, respectively) and 2017 (20% and 12%,
respectively). Besides, the CPWC in the drip system was longer than in
the micro-sprinkler system. In 2018, the weed community accumulated
up to two times more dry matter compared to the 2016 season in both
irrigation systems. Also, Poaceae species dominated both drip and
M. Freitas Souza et al. Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457

Table 1 micro-sprinkler. However, some differences can explain the longer

Parameters (mean ± standard deviation) of sigmoid models (Weibull type 1) to CPWC in drip than micro-sprinkler. In the drip system, the dominant
estimate the relative bulb yield in drip and micro-sprinkler system. species was D. horizontalis, a species with a high ability to absorb growth
Seasons System Model Parameters resources, even under unfavorable conditions, such as drought (Saito,
Slope Lower Upper ED50
2010). This Poaceae species occurred almost exclusively in the drip.
Therefore, the presence of a high density of weed with high water use
2016 Drip Competition 2.2 ± 28.0 101.7 825.1 ±
efficiency in a system with lower water supply (drip) extended the
0.8 ± 9.6 ± 4.0 145.4
No − 2.6 30.4 101.1 175.6 ± CPWC of onion, surpassing the CPWC of the micro-sprinkler system by
competition ± 0.2 ± 1,7 ± 1.3 5.7 357 GDD, referent to 31 days.
Micro- Competition 1.7 ± 7.1 ± 100.0 591.5 ± The correlation between relative bulb yield and M/D (− 0.73) and
sprinkler 0.4 6.6 ± 4.8 62.1 weed dry matter (− 0.83) was significant in the drip system. However,
No − 5.7 7.6 ± 96.9 ± 148.0 ±
competition ± 1.6 1.7 0.9 1.7
the correlation between relative bulb yield and M/D did not exhibit high
2017 Drip Competition a
1.4 a
7.3 ± a
101.5 a
761.2 linearity (Table 2). The significant correlations between relative bulb
± 0.3 1.7 ± 3.7 ± 146.0
No − 2.9 18.7 101.1 140.5 ±
competition ± 0.9 ± 4.6 ± 3.1 9.3
a a a a
Micro- Competition
sprinkler No − 1.0 11.9 115.0 179.5 ±
competition ± 0.3 ± 4.6 ± 11.5 27.2
2018 Drip Competition 3.2 ± 2.7 ± 101.6 341.5 ±
0.4 1.9 ± 2.5 9.7
No − 2.3 4.2 ± 102.0 320.2 ±
competition ± 0.4 2.3 ± 4.9 13.3
Micro- Competition 4.3 ± 2.8 ± 97.9 ± 627.2 ±
sprinkler 0.5 0.8 2.0 13.2
No − 4.9 3.6 ± 99.2 ± 415.2 ±
competition ± 0.7 1.9 3.3 8.4
a
Models with similar parameters. Competition = onion growth with
increasing competition period. No competition = onion growth with increasing
weed control period. Lower and Upper = minimum and maximum relative yield,
respectively; Slope = slope of the curve; ED50 = inflection.

Table 2
Pearson correlations between variables relative yield of onion (%), density
(plants m− 2), monocotyledonous/dicotyledonous (M/D), and dry matter of
weeds (g m− 2) in drip and micro-sprinkler systems during the 2016, 2017, and
2018 seasons.
Variable Drip Micro-sprinkler

Relative Yield Relative Yield

Dry matter (g m− 2) − 0.83a − 0.75a

M/D − 0.73a − 0.45a
Density (plants m− 2) − 0.14 0.29
Fig. 5. The beginning of CPWC (Initial-CPWC), end of CPWC (End-CPWC), and
Relative Yield 1.00 1.00
critical period for weed control (CPWC) in the two irrigation systems during
a
Significant correlations at p-value ≤0.05. 2016, 2017, 2018 seasons. Labels indicate the day’s reference to growing
degree-day. Differences are shown in bars by the mean confidence interval at
significance level ≤0.05.

Fig. 4. Relative bulbs yield (%) of onion at increasing growing degree-day periods (GDD) under drip and micro-sprinkler systems during 2016, 2017, and 2018.
*Competition (single model) represents the single model used to interpret data from both irrigation systems.

6
M. Freitas Souza et al.
yield and M/D were negative for both irrigation systems, demonstrating
that higher accumulation of dry matter associated with a higher
monocotyledon population reduces the onion bulb yield. Moreover, this
reduction in bulb yield was higher in the drip system. This behavior
between relative bulb yield and M/D ratio in the drip system may be
associated with monocotyledons’ ability to withstand conditions of
water scarcity (Bellasio et al., 2018). In situations with lower water
supply, such as drip irrigation systems, the presence of monocotyledons
(Poaceae) aggravated the competition with onion, resulting in higher
productivity losses with increasing M/D ratio in cultivated areas. This
fact suggests that specific situations involving the weed community
should be evaluated to recommend the most appropriate irrigation
system.
5. Conclusions
The weed community shows variations in terms of density and
dominant families, influenced by water management systems and
growing seasons, which are essential for onion crop management. These
changes in the weed community directly affected the CPWC. The pres­
ence of weed during the lifecycle of onion reduces until 100% of bulb
yield when more competitive communities dominate the fields. The
weeds D. horizontalis, E. pilosa and C. barbata exerts stiffer competition to
onion crops for growth resources in both irrigation systems. The CPWC
in the drip increased during the consecutive seasons, with values of 14
(2016), 20 (2017), and 73 (2018) days. In the micro-sprinkler, the CPWC
was 16 (2016), 58 (2017), and 42 (2018) days.
The results demonstrate that the irrigation system changes the CPWC
in the onion crop. Drip provides a lower CPWC in fields with high
density of weeds, but without the dominance of species D. horizontalis,
E. pilosa, and C. barbata. However, for areas dominated by these species,
micro-sprinkling provides the lowest CPWC in onion crop. Our results
are valuable for onion producers in the Brazilian semi-arid region in
optimizing the timing of weed control based on the irrigation system and
the weed community.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Matheus de Freitas Souza: Writing - review & editing, Methodol­
ogy, Formal analysis, Visualization. Hamurábi Anizio Lins: Investiga­
tion, Writing - review & editing. Hélida Campos de Mesquita:
Supervision. Taliane Maria da Silva Teófilo: Conceptualization,
Investigation. Laís Tereza Rego Torquato Reginaldo: Investigation,
Writing - review & editing. Ruana Karoline Viana Pereira: Investiga­
tion. Leilson Costa Grangeiro: Supervision. Daniel Valadão Silva:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, Resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the “Higher Education Personnel Improvement
Coordination” (Portuguese: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pes­
soal do Ensino Superior – Brasil – (CAPES)) - Finance Code 001 and
National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq,
Portuguese: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tec­
nológico). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105457.
7
Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457
References
Bellasio, C., et al., 2018. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations in savanna trees and C4
grasses grown at low, ambient and high atmospheric CO2. Plant Sci. 274, 81–192.
Blackshaw, R.E., et al., 2007. Cultural weed management. Non-chemical weed
management. In: Upadhyaya, M.K., Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Principles, Concepts, and
Technology, pp. 35–47.
Bond, W., Burston, S., 1996. Timing the removal of weeds from drilled salad onions to
prevent crop losses. Crop Protect. 15, 205–211.
Camp, C.R., 1998. Subsurface drip irrigation: a review. Trans. ASAE 41, 1353–1367.
Carmo Filho, F.D., 1991. Dados climatológicos de Mossoró: um município semi-árido
nordestino. ESAM, Mossoró.
Companhia de Entreposto e Armazéns Gerais de São Paulo-CEAGESP, 2001. Programa
brasileiro para a melhoria dos padrões comerciais e embalagens de hortigranjeiros:
Classificação da cebola (Allium cepa). São Paulo, SP.
Dunan, C.M., Westra, P., Moore, F., Chapman, P., 1996. Modelling the effect of duration
of weed competition, density of weeds and weed competitiveness on seeded,
irrigated onion. Weed Res. 36 (3), 259–269.
Elmore, C.D., Paul, R.N., 1983. Composite list of C4 weeds. Weed Sci. 31, 686–692.
Embrapa, 2018. In: Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos, fifth ed. Brasília, DF,
Brasil, Embrapa, p. 531.
Essa, E.M., 2017. Nutritional status and sufficiency ranges of nutrients based on DRIS
method of onion plants (Allium cepa L.) grown in sandy soil. J. Agric. Crops 3 (1),
12–16.
FAO, 2018. FAOSTAT - countries by commodity. Available on line at: http://www.fao.
org/faostat/en/#rankings/countries_by_commodity.
Gaba, S., et al., 2017. Response and effect traits of arable weeds in agro-ecosystems: a
review of current knowledge. Weed Res. 57, 123–147.
Galon, L., et al., 2018. Competitive interaction between sweet sorghum with weeds.
Planta Daninha 36, e018173689.
Gee, G.W., Dodson, M.E., 1981. Soil water content by microwave drying: a routing
procedure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45 (6), 1234–1237.
Guglielmini, A.C., et al., 2017. Competitive ability of five common weed species in
competition with soybean. Int. J. Pest Manag. 63, 30–36.
Halford, C., et al., 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max)
and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15, 737–744.
Haque, M.A., et al., 2011. Profitability of onion cultivation in some selected areas of
Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 36, 427–435.
Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from
temperature. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1, 96–99.
Hawkesford, M.J., Kopriva, S., De Kok, L.J., 2016. Nutrient Use Efficiency in Plants.
Springer International Pu.
Herrmann, C.M., et al., 2017. Postemergence weed control in onion with bentazon,
flumioxazin, and oxyfluorfen. Weed Technol. 31, 279–290.
Higashikawa, F.S., Menezes Júnior, F.O.G., 2017. Adubação mineral, orgânica e
organomineral: efeitos na nutrição, produtividade, pós-colheita da cebola e na
fertilidade do solo. Sci. Agrár. 18, 1–10.
IBGE, 2019. Produção agrícola municipal. Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.
br/tabela/1612#resultado. (Accessed 5 June 2019).
Jha, P., Kumar, V., Godara, R.K., Chauhan, B.S., 2017. Weed management using crop
competition in the United States: a review. Crop Protect. 95, 31–37.
Johnstone, J.F., et al., 2016. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and
forest resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 369–378.
Kaur, S., et al., 2018. Understanding crop-weed-fertilizer-water interactions and their
implications for weed management in agricultural systems. Crop Protect. 103,
65–72.
Knezevic, S.Z., Evans, S.P., Mainz, M., 2003. Row spacing influences the critical timing
for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17, 666–673.
Knezevic, S.Z., Datta, A., 2015. The CPWC: revisiting data analysis. Weed Sci. 63,
188–202.
Knezevic, S.Z., et al., 2019. Critical time for weed removal in glyphosate-resistant
soybean as influenced by preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 33 (3), 393–399.
Koumanov, K.S., et al., 1997. Application efficiency of micro-sprinkler irrigation of
almond trees. Agric. Water Manag. 34, 247–263.
Mahgoub, N.A., et al., 2017. Roots and nutrient distribution under drip irrigation and
yield of faba bean and onion. Open J. Soil Sci. 7, 52–67.
Marouelli, W.A., et al., 2005. Irrigação da cultura da cebola. Brasília: Embrapa
Hortaliças. Circular Técnica 37, 17.
Nichols, V., et al., 2015. Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: a
review. Field Crop. Res. 183, 56–68.
Pinto, H., et al., 2016. Variations in nitrogen use efficiency reflect the biochemical
subtype while variations in water use efficiency reflect the evolutionary lineage of
C4 grasses at inter-glacial CO2. Plant Cell Environ. 39, 514–526.
Price, A.J., et al., 2018. Andrew J. et al. Influence of a Cereal Rye Cover Crop and
Conservation Tillage on the CPWC in Cotton. Weed Technol. 32, 683–690.
R Core Team, 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Ritz, C., Baty, F., Streibig, J.C., Gerhard, D., 2015. Dose-response analysis using R. PloS
One 10 (12), e0146021.
Saito, K., 2010. Weed pressure level and the correlation between weed competitiveness
and rice yield without weed competition: an analysis of empirical data. Field Crop.
Res. 117, 1–8.
Singh, M., et al., 2012. Factors affecting the germination of tall morningglory (Ipomoea
purpurea). Weed Sci. 60, 64–68.
M. Freitas Souza et al. Crop Protection 147 (2021) 105457

Souza, J., Silva, A.A.P., Chagas, R.R., Oliveira Neto, A.M., Maciel, C.D.G., Resende, J., Tursun, N., et al., 2015. Nitrogen application influenced the CPWC in cotton. Crop
Ono, E.O., 2016. Weed interference periods and transplanting densities of onion crop Protect. 74, 85–91.
in the Brazilian region of Guarapuava, PR1. Planta Daninha 34 (2), 299–308. Tursun, N., et al., 2016. The CPWC in three corn (Zea mays L.) types. Crop Protect. 90,
59–65.