Next Article in Journal
Will Yellow Mealworm Become a Source of Safe Proteins for Europe?
Next Article in Special Issue
Glyphosate Resistance in Amaranthus viridis in Brazilian Citrus Orchards
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Productive, Competitive, and Economic Aspects of Spring Cereal Mixtures in Integrated and Organic Crop Rotations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Weed Infestation and Health of the Soybean Crop Depending on Cropping System and Tillage System
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Weed Infestation, Grain Health, and Productivity Parameters of Two Spelt Wheat Cultivars Depending on Crop Protection Intensification and Seeding Densities

by
Małgorzata Haliniarz
1,
Dorota Gawęda
1,*,
Bożena Nowakowicz-Dębek
2,
Agnieszka Najda
3,
Sylwia Chojnacka
1,
Justyna Łukasz
1,
Łukasz Wlazło
2 and
Monika Różańska-Boczula
4
1
Department of Herbology and Plant Cultivation Techniques, Faculty of Agrobioengineering, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Animal Hygiene and Environmental Hazards, Faculty of Animal Sciences and Bioeconomy, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
3
Department of Vegetable Crops and Medicinal Plants, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 15, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
4
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Production Engineering, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Głęboka 28, 20-612 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2020, 10(6), 229; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060229
Submission received: 15 May 2020 / Revised: 10 June 2020 / Accepted: 11 June 2020 / Published: 15 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Weed Ecology and New Approaches for Management)

Abstract

:
Spelt wheat is one of the oldest wheat with very high nutritional value. It does not have particular climatic requirements and tolerates adverse environmental conditions well. The versatile advantages of spelt wheat make it attractive to farmers, plant breeders, food technologists, and consumers. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of different crop protection systems and seeding densities on yield, weed infestation, and grain health of the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” and “Schwabenspelz”. The research showed that the spelt wheat cultivars studied responded differently to production intensification. The use of crop protection chemicals in the crop of the cultivar “Rokosz” resulted in lower weed infestation and in obtaining higher yields. In the case of the cultivar “Schwabenspelz”, production intensification did not have a significant effect on its productivity and quantitative weed infestation parameters. Therefore, this cultivar can be recommended for cultivation in farms with extensive farming methods, for example, in organic farms. In both cultivars studied, an increase in seeding density and chemical plant protection with fungicide caused lower grain contamination with mycotoxins, and the content of individual mycotoxins did not exceed the maximum levels set for grain intended for food and animal feed purposes.

1. Introduction

Spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) probably originates from the region of southeastern Asia and is one of the oldest wheat subspecies [1,2]. The beginnings of its cultivation date back to the Stone Age. Archaeological investigations reveal that, starting with the Bronze Age, spelt was the most important consumption crop in Europe for many years [3,4]. However, its small production potential and difficulties with grain dehulling became the reason why the cultivation of this crop was abandoned in favor of more productive common wheat varieties [4,5].
Changing trends both in cultivation of agricultural crops and in human nutrition have been observed in recent years. People have started to attach a great importance to increased biological diversity of agricultural plant communities, reduced use of industrial production means in agriculture, and consumption of products with health promoting properties [3,4,6]. During the last 20 years, due to its nutritional qualities, spelt wheat was again introduced into cultivation, primarily through the organic farming system [7,8,9,10,11]. In Poland, similar to other European countries, the cultivation of spelt wheat is concentrated in organic farms and the interest in this cereal is continually growing [12]. The estimated cropped area of spelt in 2015 was about 225 ha [13]. The productivity of this species in Poland varies greatly. Grain yield can exceed 6 t ha−1 [14], while under conditions unfavorable for growing common wheat, yields can be even higher than those obtained for common wheat [12]. In comparison with common wheat, spelt grain contains more protein, gluten, and fat, but less dietary fiber. It is a rich source of silicon, minerals, and group B vitamins. Moreover, it contains substances with antioxidant properties [5,15,16,17,18]. Spelt wheat does not have high climatic and soil requirements, and tolerates adverse environmental conditions well [19,20,21,22]. It is characterized by a rather high level of resistance to ear and grain diseases caused by fungal pathogens [8,23] and, due to its high tillering ability, competes with weeds better than common wheat [24]. These characteristics allow this crop to be grown without excessive use of crop protection products and mineral fertilizers, and hence it is considered to be environmentally friendly [25]. Studies conducted by different researchers have shown great variations in productivity and quality parameters between different spelt wheat varieties [18,21,26,27], as well as their varying response to soil and climatic conditions [22] and agronomic factors [18,27,28,29]. Most research is focused on organic cultivation of spelt [17,21,22,30], but there is little information how spelt wheat responds to production intensification. According to Rachoń et al. [31] and Andruszczak et al. [32], higher grain yields were obtained under full chemical protection conditions compared to extensive cultivation conditions. Therefore, a study was undertaken to explain how crop protection intensification and different seeding densities affect yield, yield components, weed infestation, and grain health of two winter wheat spelt cultivars. Taking into account the genetic characteristics of spelt wheat, the experiment assumed that (i) the absence of any crop protection or mechanical protection and application of herbicide alone would not contribute to a significant decrease in grain yield and health, compared to full chemical protection; (ii) pro-ecological technology involving the complete abandonment of crop protection or the use of only harrowing would not deteriorate the productivity of spelt wheat and its health, in comparison with chemical protection; (iii) in treatments with a higher seeding rate, the denser spelt crop would be more competitive against weeds, which would contribute to reduced weed infestation and would not increase grain infection with fungal pathogens, in consequence allowing a satisfactory yield to be obtained; and (iv) the response of spelt wheat to production technologies is cultivar-dependent.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location of the Experiment—Soil and Climatic Conditions

The field study was carried out for three growing seasons, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, and 2014/2015, at the Czesławice Experimental Farm (51°18′23″ N, 22°16′2″ E), belonging to the Lublin University of Life Sciences, Poland. The experiment on growing spelt wheat was established on a loess-derived Luvisol. The arable layer of the soil was characterized by high availability of phosphorus (P, 76.3–77.7 mg kg−1 soil) and potassium (K, 117.8–132.3 mg kg−1 soil), as well as medium availability of magnesium (Mg, 79–85 mg kg−1 soil), slightly acidic pH (in 1 M KCl, 6.1–6.4), and a low humus content of 1.59–1.63%.
The 2013/2014 season could be described as very wet since the total rainfall was higher by 281 mm than in the 2014/2015 season, 147.1 mm higher than in 2012/2013, and 206.3 mm higher than the 1963–2010 average (Table 1). In the years 2013 and 2014, the amount of rainfall in May and June much exceeded the long-term average (LTA). In August 2014, there was 32.5 mm more rain than the LTA. In 2015 the amount of rainfall in May was high, but June and August were very dry with only 13.5 and 5.9 mm of rain, respectively. The temperature ranges in the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 growing seasons were similar. The mean temperature in these years was higher by 0.9 °C in the 2013/2014 season and by 1 °C in 2014/2015. In the 2012/2013 season, the mean temperature was the same as the long-term average. In all the growing seasons, July was warmer than over the period 1963–2010.

2.2. Experimental Design and Agronomic Practices

A field experiment was set up using a split-block design in three replicates. Two winter spelt wheat cultivars, the German cultivar “Schwabenspelz” and the Polish cultivar “Rokosz”, were evaluated in this study. The experiment included the following factors:
I—crop protection
  • pro-ecological:
A—untreated control plots (no herbicide, fungicide, or insecticide treatment);
B—harrowing in early spring at the beginning of the growing season;
2.
chemical:
C—application of the herbicides Sekator 125 OD (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany, active ingredients (a.i.) amidosulfuron, iodosulfuron, mefenpyr-diethyl) at a rate of 150 mL ha−1 and Attribut 70 WG (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany; a.i. propoxycarbazone-sodium) at a rate of 60 g ha−1 at BBCH (Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und CHemische Industrie) stages 22–24 of spelt wheat;
D—application of complete chemical protection—the herbicides Sekator 125 OD at a rate of 150 mL ha−1 and Attribut 70 WG at a rate of 60 g ha−1 at BBCH 22–24 of spelt wheat; the growth retardant Cerone 480 SL (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany, a.i. ethephon) at BBCH 30–31 at a rate of 0.75 L ha−1, the fungicide Wirtuoz 520 EC (Corteva, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA, a.i. prochloraz, tebuconazole, proquinazid) at BBCH 24–25 and 32–33 at a rate of 1 L ha−1, as well as the insecticide Decis 2,5 EC (Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany, a.i. deltamethrin) at BBCH 37–39 at an amount of 0.25 L ha−1.
II—seeding density:
  • optimum—130 kg ha−1 of cv. ”Rokosz” seeds and 200 kg ha−1 of cv. “Schwabenspelz” spikelets;
  • increased—200 kg ha−1 of cv. “Rokosz” seeds and 350 kg ha−1 of cv. “Schwabenspelz” spikelets.
Mineral fertilization was applied at the following rates: N, 50 kg ha−1; P, 26.2 kg ha−1; and K, 58.1 kg ha−1. All phosphorus and potassium fertilizers and part of the nitrogen fertilizers (20 kg N) were applied before sowing the spelt wheat. The remaining portion of nitrogen fertilizers was applied right after the beginning of the growing season. The sown and harvested plot area was 13.5 m2, per repetition. Winter wheat was the previous crop for spelt wheat. Tillage was typical for common wheat cultivation. The spelt wheat was sown in the third decade of September 2012–2014 and harvested in the second decade of August 2013–2015.

2.3. Evaluation of Yield and Weed Infestation

Approximately 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment and at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), evaluation of weed infestation of the spelt crop was made using the dry-weight-rank system. The evaluation involved determination of the botanical composition of weeds, as well as their number and dry weight per 1 m2. The sampling area was delineated with a 0.5 × 1 m quadrat frame in two randomly selected places in each plot. Weed nomenclature followed Mirek et al. [33].
Plant height and ear length were determined based on 30 randomly selected plants from each plot. Weight of grains per ear was determined based on the average results for 30 randomly selected ears per plot. Ear density was calculated in two randomly chosen places with an area of 0.5 m2 per plot. Yield was estimated based on grain harvested from the individual plots and expressed on a per hectare basis.

2.4. Determination of Fungal Contamination of Grain

Samples of about 20 g of spelt grain (from each plot) were homogenized by hand for 5 min and then sedimented for 15 minutes in sterile dilution liquid with approximately 100 μL of Tween 80 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The dilutions were prepared and inoculated on sterile Sabouraud Chloramphenicol Agar (BTL Poland Ltd., Warsaw, Poland). To determine the total number of fungi, the plates were incubated at a temperature of 25 ± 0.2 °C for 7 days according to the relevant standard [34,35]. The colonies were transferred to microcultures and species were determined using Watanabe’s key [36]. Each sample was analyzed in triplicate and the results presented as the number of fungi per 1 g of the tested material (cfu g−1).

2.5. Determination of Mycotoxin Contamination of Grain

The content of deoxynivalenol (DON) and its derivatives: 3-O-acetylDON (3AcDON), 15-O-acetylDON (15AcDON), and zearalenone (UAE) were determined according to the authors' method developed in the Laboratory of Vegetable and Herb Raw Material Quality Research: "Determination of deoxynivalenol and its derivatives, nivalenol and zearalenone by HPLC method with purification by immunological affinity column in plant raw materials". The presence of trichothecene mycotoxins such as T-2 toxin (T-2) and its derivatives HT-2 toxin (HT-2), nivalenol (NIV), DAS (diacetoxyscirpenol), and fuzarenone X were analyzed by gas chromatography following the procedure given by Valle-Algarra et al. [37].

2.5.1. Sample Preparation and Extraction

A 5 g sample of spelt grain previously finely ground with a laboratory mill (FW135, ChemLand, Stargard Szczeciński, Poland) was placed in a test tube and treated with 20 mL of acetonitrile (ACN): H2O so lution (85:15). The diluted samples were shaken with a centrifuge (30 min, 21.000× g, Universal 32, Hettich, Tuttlingen, Germany) and left for 6 h, after which time it was again shaken for 30 min. The extract was filtered through a 0.2 Pm membrane syringe filter (Costar X, Corning Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Then, 5 mL of filtrate was collected for thorough purification and applied to a MycoSep 225 Trich column (Romer Laboratories, Union, MO, USA). Two mL of purified eluents were evaporated to dryness at 50 °C, and the residue dissolved in 0.5 mL of mobile phase (10% aqueous acetonitrile) after which the mycotoxin content was determined.

2.5.2. HPLC Analysis Conditions

A LaChrom–Merck HPLC liquid chromatograph (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was equipped with a DAD diode detector (L-7450), binary pump (L-7100), degasser (L-7612), thermostat (L-7360), Rheodyne injector, and steel column LiChrospher 100 RP C18 (250 × 4 mm) filled with stationary phase (particle diameter—dp = 5 μM). UV detection was performed at 220 nm (deoxynivalenol, 3-O-acetylDON, 15-O-acetylDON) and 220–440 (zearalenone) at 28 °C and a flow rate of 0.800 mL min−1. The mobile phase was aqueous acetonitrile. Separation was achieved in an isocratic water: acetonitrile (8:92) analysis by deoxynivalenol, 3-O-acetylDON, 15-O-acetylDON, and (63:37) by analysis of zearalenone. To increase the separation, 1% acetic acid was added to the mobile phase. Identification of analyzed compounds was made on the basis of retention time. Quantitative assessment was carried out using the external standard method, after creating a calibration curve using pure reference substances.

2.5.3. GC/MS Analysis Conditions

Separation of trichothecenes, nivalenol, and fuzarenone X was carried out using a Varian CP-3800 gas chromatograph (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) equipped with an detector ECD (instant connect Electron Capture Detector) and columns VF-1ms 30 m × 0.32 mm ID (Column Internal Diameter), DF (film thickness) = 0.25 μm from Varian. The temperature of the dispenser chamber was 250 °C and the detector 300 °C. The following oven temperature gradient was used: 80 °C for 1 min, increment 40 °C for 1 min to 160 °C, 3 °C for 1 min to 178 °C, 2 °C for 1 min to 240 °C, 40 °C for 1 min to 270 °C, 270 °C for 1 min. Nitrogen was used as carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL for min.

2.5.4. Chemical Reagents

Organic solvents with spectroscopic purity were obtained from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). All deoxynivalenol (DON) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard), 3-O-acetylDON (3AcDON) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard), 15-O-acetylDON (15AcDON) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard), zearalenone (UAE) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard), T-2 toxin (T-2) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard) and its derivatives HT-2 toxin (HT-2) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard), nivalenol (NIV) purity ≥ 95% (reference standard), DAS—diacetoxyscirpenol purity ≥ 95% (reference standard) and fuzarenone X purity ≥ 95% (reference standard) were from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (Statistica PL 13.3, StatSoft Polska, Krakow, Poland). The distribution conformity with normal distribution was verified with the Shapiro–Wilk test, while homogeneity of the variance was tested with Levene’s test. In the case of any feature where a significant interaction was found between the factor and year, interaction effects were analyzed separately for each year of the study. If no significant interactions were found between the factors, then Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to compare differences between the means for main factors (crop protection, seeding density, cultivar). Confidence half-intervals were calculated by Tukey’s test at a significance level of 0.05. Significant differences between the two groups of treatments, pro-ecological protection (treatments A and B) and chemical protection (treatments C and D), were evaluated based on the Scheffe test (α = 0.05). Total number of fungi in grain is presented in log CFU g−1.

3. Results

3.1. Weed Infestation of Spelt Wheat

The statistical analysis of the weed infestation parameters for the crop of the “Rokosz” spelt wheat cultivar, as evaluated 3–4 weeks after herbicide application, revealed significant differences in the traits between years (Table 2). The highest number of weeds was found in the first year of the study in the treatments where no herbicide was used (treatments A and B) and in the second year of the study in the control treatment. Weeds produced the highest biomass in 2013 in treatments A and B. Harrowing done as the only weed control operation (treatment B) proved to be ineffective in reducing weed infestation because the number and dry weight of weeds were similar to those found in the control treatment (A) in each year of the study. However, it was only in 2013 that weed infestation in this treatment was significantly higher than in the treatments where the herbicide was applied. In the years 2014 and 2015, as well as in treatments C and D in 2013, weed infestation of the crop was at a similar level. At the dough stage of wheat, crop protection method and year were not found to significantly affect number of weeds. The highest weight of weeds was determined in the first year of the study in the treatments without herbicide application (A and B). In the other treatments, the weight of weeds was similar. The results for the three-year study showed that in cv. “Rokosz”, herbicide application had a significant impact on weed infestation of the crop. At the first evaluation of weed infestation, the average number of weeds in the chemical protection treatments (C and D) was more than one-half lower, while their dry weight was four times lower than in the pro-ecological treatments A and B. At the dough stage of cv. “Rokosz”, similar relationships were observed as those made 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment.
In the cv. “Schwabenspelz” crop, the evaluation of weed infestation performed 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment demonstrated that significantly the lowest number of weeds was found under chemical protection conditions (treatments C and D) (Table 3). Nonetheless, the number of weeds in the harrowing treatment and in the treatment where the herbicide was applied alone (treatment C) was similar. After application of chemical protection (treatments C and D), the dry weight of weeds was lower by 76.4% and 69.4% than in the control treatment (A). The statistical calculations showed that at the first evaluation of weed infestation, the average number and dry weight of weeds found in the chemical treatments (C and D) were significantly lower than those determined for the pro-ecological treatments (A and B) by 42.7% and 70.5%, respectively. At the dough stage of wheat, crop protection method was not shown to have an effect on the number and dry weight of weeds in the cv. “Schwabenspelz” crop.
On average over the period 2013–2015, seeding density was not found to have a significant influence on the number and dry weight of weeds in the cv. “Rokosz” the cv. “Schwabenspelz” crop at both times that weed infestation was evaluated (Figure 1). Nonetheless, it could be observed that a higher seeding density had a more beneficial effect on weed infestation, as demonstrated by the lower number and weight of weeds in the crop.
The analysis of the quantitative weed infestation parameters did not reveal significant differences in the number of weeds between the studied cultivars, but it proved a significantly lower biomass of weeds in the tall cultivar “Schwabenspelz”. At the first evaluation of weed infestation, 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, the weed biomass in the crop of this cultivar was determined to be 15.64 g m−2 and it was 21% lower than for cv. “Rokosz”. During the evaluation of weed infestation at the dough stage of spelt wheat, the difference in the biomass of weeds occurring in the crops of the cultivars studied was even greater, since for cv. “Rokosz” it was almost twice higher than for cv. “Schwabenspelz”. At the first evaluation of weed infestation, Viola arvensis, Geranium pusillum, and Apera spica-venti were predominant in the spelt wheat crop (Figure 2a,b). In both cultivars, chemical crop protection significantly reduced the number of Apera spica-venti and Viola arvensis (Figure 2a). Seeding density did not cause differences in numbers of the dominant weed species in the crop (Figure 2b). At the dough stage (BBCH 83–85) of spelt wheat, the number of Viola arvensis plants was similar among all the treatments, while the number of Apera spica-venti was significantly lower on chemical crop protection treatments, compared to treatments A and B. (Figure 3a). In the cv. ”Schwabenspelz”, an increased seeding density reduced significantly the numbers of Apera spica-venti (Figure 3b).

3.2. Yield and Yield Components of Spelt Wheat

On average over the three-year study period, the crop protection system did not cause significant differences in the yield components of the cultivar “Rokosz” (Table 4). The comparison of pro-ecological crop protection systems (A, B) and chemical crop protection did not reveal any significant differences in the yield components.
The statistical analysis showed cv. “Rokosz” grain yield to be significantly dependent on crop protection system and year (Table 5). In the first year of the experiment, the highest grain yield was obtained from the treatment where full chemical crop protection was used (treatment D). In the years 2014 and 2015, crop protection intensification did not contribute to increased yields of cv. “Rokosz”. In 2015, higher yields were obtained in all crop protection treatments than in 2014, while treatments A, B, and C were higher than in 2013. The statistical analysis, performed based on the means for the three-year study period, revealed that the average grain yield from the chemical protection treatments (C, D) was 19.1% higher than in the pro-ecological treatments (A, B).
As far as the analyzed yield components for cv. “Schwabenspelz” are concerned, the crop protection methods significantly modified plant height, but they had no effect on ear length, density, or grain weight per ear (Table 6). Wheat in the treatment that included only harrowing produced the highest plants (treatment B); the plant height was significantly lower in the treatment with full chemical protection (D). The different crop protection methods used did not affect yield of the spelt wheat cultivar “Schwabenspelz”. The Scheffe test did not show significant differences in grain yield between pro-ecological technologies and chemical protection of the cv. “Schwabenspelz” crop.
On average over the period 2013–2015, seeding density significantly modified only the ear length of the wheat cultivar “Rokosz”, but significantly the highest value of this parameter was achieved at an optimal seeding density (Table 7). The seeding density factor did not cause significant differences in the other biometric characteristics and yield of cv. “Rokosz”. Also, seeding density was not found to have a significant effect on the yield components and grain yield of cv. “Schwabenspelz”.
Comparing the cultivars studied, it was found that the spelt wheat cultivar “Schwabenspelz” was characterized by significantly higher plants (by 22.7%) and longer ears (by 29.5%) relative to cv. “Rokosz”. The comparison of the spelt wheat cultivars concerning the other biometric characteristics did not show significant differences. The grain yield of the spelt wheat cultivar “Rokosz” was significantly higher than that of cv. “Schwabenspelz”, on average by 31.8%.

3.3. Grain Health

The results showed that the total number of fungi in cv. “Rokosz” grain ranged from 3.11 log CFU g1 in treatment D with a increased seeding density to 3.87 log CFU g−1 in treatment A with an optimal seeding density, while in cv. “Schwabenspelz” grain ranged from 3.82 log CFU g−1 in treatment D with a higher seeding density to 4.46 log CFU g−1 in treatment B with an optimal seeding density (Figure 4a,b). In the grain with chemical crop protection (treatments C and D) in cv. “Rokosz” the total number of fungi was statistically significantly lower (p ≤ 0.05). The fungi Penicillium sp., Penicillium expansum, Candida sp., Aureobasidium sp., Aspergillus sp., Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus terreus, Cladosporium sp., Cladosporium cladosporides, Ulocladium sp., Fusarium sp., Rhodotorula sp., Rhizopus sp., Trichophyton sp., and Phoma sp. were found in different ratio in spelt wheat (Figure 5 and Figure 6). In cv. “Rokosz” grain, Fusarium sp. (19.4–76.7%) and Aspergillus sp. (11.9–38.9%) were the most abundant species, while in cv. “Schwabenspelz” grain the most abundant were Cladosporium sp. (7.23–53.3%) and Fusarium sp. (4.76–38.5%).
Both total mycotoxin content and the content of individual toxins in spelt grain were modified by the crop protection system and seeding density (Table 8 and Table 9). In cv. “Rokosz” grain, significantly the highest number of mycotoxins was found in treatment C after application of herbicide crop protection alone, while the lowest number of mycotoxins was recorded in treatment D (after application of the fungicide) (Table 8). In grain harvested from the pro-ecological treatments (A and B), the number mycotoxins was at a similar level, but the amount of DAS, DON, ZEA, HT-2, and 15-acDON mycotoxins differed significantly. A denser seeding resulted in reduced grain contamination with mycotoxins. In cv. “Schwabenspelz”, the lowest number of mycotoxins was found in the treatment with full chemical crop protection (treatment D) (Table 9). In the other treatments, on the other hand, grain contamination with mycotoxins was at a similar level and significantly higher than in treatment D. Similarly as in the case of cv. “Rokosz”, a denser seeding contributed to a decrease in the number of mycotoxins in grain.
Regardless of the experimental factors, the amount of mycotoxins in grain of the spelt wheat cultivars studied did not differ significantly. One can only observe slightly greater susceptibility of cv. “Rokosz” to contamination with mycotoxins. In grain of this cultivar, the amounts of DAS and DON mycotoxins and of HT-2 toxin were found to be significantly greater than in “Schwabenspelz”. Cv. “Rokosz” was found to have the highest content of NIV, 3-AcDON, and DAS mycotoxins, while cv. “Schwabenspelz” had the largest amounts of 3-AcDON, NIV, and 15-AcDON.

4. Discussion

Many authors indicate that the appropriate selection of a weed competitive variety is a major no-cost method of reducing weed infestation in crops [24,38,39,40]. In the opinion of Korres and Froud-Williams [41], as well as Mason and Spaner [42], high plants with intense tillering and forming a dense crop contribute to a reduced occurrence of weeds. This theory was confirmed by Kraska et al. [14], according to whom the selection of an appropriate cultivar had a significant impact on weed infestation of crops. Weeds produced significantly the lowest biomass in the tall spelt cultivar “Oberkulmer Rotkorn”, while the highest biomass developed in the shortest spelt cultivar “Badengold”. Although the research presented in this paper did not confirm statistically significant differences in the number of weeds found in the crops of the evaluated cultivars, at each time weed infestation was evaluated a significantly lower dry weight of weeds was determined in the tall cultivar “Schwabenspelz”. Due to the higher competitive pressure of this cultivar, weeds were more shaded and had less space for growth, and hence they produced a lower biomass. Other research results confirm that spelt wheat is characterized by high competitiveness against weeds, but they do not indicate unequivocally that this trait depends directly on plant height [24,43]. According to the study by Andruszczak et al. [40], the spelt cultivar “Frankenkorn”, which was not significantly lower than many evaluated cultivars [43], was the most competitive against weeds, whereas according to Feledyn-Szewczyk [24] and Andruszczak et al. [39] the lowest weed infestation was found in the tall cultivar “Schwabenkorn” [43]. In the present study, the averages for the three-year study indicate that chemical crop protection (treatments C and D), based on its effect evaluated 3–4 weeks after application, significantly reduced the number and dry weight of weeds in the crops of both spelt wheat cultivars. The effect of the applied herbicide could be seen particularly in the first year of the study, in which the high rainfall in October caused intensive emergence of weeds. In 2014, the rainfall at the end of April and in May could have reduced the effectiveness of the herbicide. In the last year of the study, on the other hand, weed infestation of the crop was so low that the effect of herbicide action was not very visible. Herbicide application had no significant impact on weed infestation of cv. “Schwabenspelz” before harvest, but in the cv. “Rokosz” crop significantly lower weed infestation was shown in the treatments where herbicides were applied in comparison with the pro-ecological protection methods. In the studies by Andruszczak et al. [39,40], herbicide treatment significantly decreased the dry weight of weeds, but had no effect on their number. The results of the present study confirm the opinion of many authors who stress the low effectiveness of harrowing and its high dependence on weather conditions [44,45]. In the cv. “Rokosz” crop, weed infestation of the crop was not found to be significantly lower in the harrowing treatment compared to the control treatment in any year of the study. Nevertheless, in the first two growing seasons the number and biomass of weeds were slightly lower than in treatment A, whereas in 2015 weed infestation was slightly higher than in the harrowing treatment. In the cv. “Schwabenspelz” crop, harrowing also reduced weed infestation relative to the control treatment. According to Hansen et al. [46] and Lundkvist [47], the effectiveness of harrowing as a weed control method can be increased by performing this operation at an early time and repeating it two or three times, as well as by selecting weed-competitive crop plant cultivars. Despite the opinion of Korres and Froud-Williams [41] that an increase in seeding density of wheat contributes to reduced weed infestation of crops, this study did not demonstrate such a correlation for spelt wheat. It was attributable to the fact that a denser seeding did not cause a significant increase in ear density and therefore did not increase significantly the crop density.
The yield potential of crops is genetically driven and therefore selection of a variety with expected parameters is very important in crop production [14,22,32]. Moreover, in field cultivation a crop is affected by variable atmospheric conditions, which determine crop growth and development and, in consequence, yields obtained [16,22,28]. Spelt wheat is considered to be a species resistant to stress caused by adverse environmental conditions [25]. In the present study, the average grain yield for the period 2013–2015 was lower than those obtained by some researchers conducting studies in Poland [14,28]. This is due to adverse weather conditions in the first two years of the experiment, especially unevenly distributed rainfall in May and June, which contributed to the lower crop productivity. In a study by Wojtkowiak and Stępień [28], the average yield of cv. “Schwabenkorn” in 2013 was 7.47 t ha−1, while a year earlier it was 46% lower. Jablonskytė-Raščė et al. [16] also found large differences in spelt yield in individual years of the study. This confirms the thesis that relatively small and unstable yields are a factor that limits the cultivation of spelt wheat [14]. Andruszczak [43] and Jablonskytė-Raščė et al. [16] found spelt wheat yields at a similar level compared to that obtained in the present study. In the study by Andruszczak [43], the yield of cv. “Schwabenspelz” was higher than in the present experiment, standing at 4.18 t ha−1. According to a study conducted by Glamočlija et al. [21] in Serbia, on the other hand, yields of organically grown spelt wheat were lower, ranging from 2.33 to 3.35 t ha−1. The study by Pospišil et al. [48,49], on the other hand, demonstrates that agronomic factors have a great impact on spelt wheat yield.
In many papers, it is stressed that spelt wheat is tolerant to different growing conditions and does not require intensive protection [9,21]. The results of conducted research indicate that the effect of crop protection intensification on this species’ yield is dependent on the variety. In the case of the Polish cultivar “Rokosz”, a 19% higher yield was obtained after application of chemical crop protection (C, D) compared to pro-ecological cropping (A, B). Cv. “Schwabenspelz”, on the other hand, did not respond with a substantial increase in yield after application of crop protection products, but the yields obtained were slightly higher than for the pro-ecologically grown crop. Andruszczak [43] demonstrated that crop protection intensification had a beneficial effect on the productivity of spelt wheat, whereas in the research carried out by Pospišil et al. [48] the impact of fungicide application on spelt wheat varied between years.
Similar to the studies conducted by Andruszczak [4] and Pospišil et al. [48,49], in the present experiment seeding density did not have a significant effect on most of the yield components and yield of spelt wheat. This finding is related to the phenomenon of the so-called crop self-regulation, due to which the number of plants per unit area is not directly proportional to the seeding rate. With increasing seeding rate, the phenomenon of self-regulation of the number of plants in a crop intensifies in order not to allow excessive density. At lower seeding densities, the tillering ability of the crop increases [12].
Wheat grains are colonized by various fungi, including plant pathogens and mycotoxin-producing species. The species composition of seed-colonizing fungi can be modified by various agronomic practices and weather conditions [23,50,51]. In this study, spelt grain was colonized by many fungi, but mainly by Fusarium sp., Cladosporium sp., and Aspergillus sp. The main mycotoxin producers are fungi of the genera Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium [52,53]. Species of the genus Fusarium differ in their epidemiology, pathogenicity, and ability to produce mycotoxins. Most Fusarium species can produce one or more mycotoxins exhibiting different degrees of toxicity [54,55]. Deoxynivalenol (DON), T-2, HT-2, and nivalenol (NIV) are the most common in cereals [56,57]. In the spelt grain evaluated, similar to products investigated by Serrano et al. [58], the mycotoxin NIV was found to have the highest content. In the opinion of Serrano et al. [58], special attention should be paid to this mycotoxin due to the toxicological effects of its occurrence and its large amount in cereal products. Spelt wheat is characterized by a higher level of resistance to fungal ear and grain infections than common wheat [8,59]. In grain of the spelt cultivars studied, all nine mycotoxins were found to occur, whereas Juan et al. [60] identified in spelt only four mycotoxins: DON, NIV, fuzarenon X (FUS-X), and enniatin A (EN A), whose amounts were comparable to the content of these compounds in the cultivar “Schwabenspelz”. According to Mankevičienė et al. [23], lower DON, ZEA, and T-2/HT-2 concentrations were found in spelt grain without glumes than in spelt grain with glumes, in glumes, and in spring wheat grain. Likewise, Vučkovič et al. [8] detected higher levels of mycotoxins in hulls compared to grains. Conditions that are most favorable for the development of fungi and contamination of grain with mycotoxins include high humidity, frequent rainfall, particularly before harvest, and relatively warm night temperatures [61,62]. In the opinion of Blandino et al. [63,64], high plant density is associated with higher grain infection, while in the present study, grain of both cultivars contained fewer mycotoxins under conditions of denser seeding compared to less dense seeding. Such results could have been attributable to several factors. Firstly, the denser seeding did not cause an increase in ear density in the crop. Furthermore, despite that it was not confirmed statistically, under conditions of the higher seeding rate, the weed infestation of the crop before harvest of spelt wheat was slightly lower. Weeds occurring in the crop significantly affect crop health because they can change moisture conditions in the crop and host disease-causing fungi [65]. Lower infestation of spelt wheat resulted in lower fungal infection of grain and thus contributed to lower mycotoxin content. The effect of plant density on the amount of mycotoxins was investigated by many authors, but due to the diversity of factors affecting grain infection, their results are not unambiguous [66,67,68]. Mycotoxin content also depends on the cultivar [67,69]. In grain of both cultivars, in line with the expectations, the lowest amount of mycotoxins was found in the treatment with fungicide application. In cv. “Rokosz”, most mycotoxins were found after application of the herbicide alone (treatment C). In cv. “Schwabenspelz”, the amount of mycotoxins in grain obtained from treatments A, B, and C was at a similar level. Grain of the evaluated spelt wheat cultivars, both in the pro-ecological treatments (A and B) and in the treatments with application of crop protection products, can be considered as safe and good because the content of individual mycotoxins did not exceed the maximum levels set for grain intended for food and animal feed purposes [70].

5. Conclusions

The present study showed how production intensification affected the productivity, weed infestation, and grain health of the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” and “Schwabenspelz”. The cultivar “Rokosz” was significantly less infested with weeds and produced significantly higher yields under chemical crop protection conditions than in the case of pro-ecological crop protection. The effect of crop protection methods on the quantitative weed infestation parameters and yield of this cultivar varied between years. Grain harvested from the treatment with herbicide application alone was characterized by the highest contamination with mycotoxins, while it was found to be lowest in the case of grain of grain harvested from treatment D. In the case of the cultivar “Schwabenspelz”, no significant differences in yield were revealed between the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection treatments, and the effect of crop protection treatments on yield was not dependent on weather conditions. Cv. “Schwabenspelz” proved to be more competitive to weeds. At the dough stage of this crop plant, no significant differences in weed infestation were found between the pro-ecological treatments and those in which an herbicide was used. The lowest content of mycotoxins was determined in grain harvested from treatment D. In cv. “Schwabenspelz” grain, in comparison with the cultivar “Rokosz”, the amount of mycotoxins DAS, DON, and HT-2 was determined be significantly lower, while the mycotoxin ZEA was not found at all.
Seeding density did not have a significant effect on most of the yield components, yield, and weed infestation of the spelt wheat crop. In both cultivars investigated, a higher seeding density contributed to reduced grain contamination with mycotoxins.
Due to the favorable response of the cultivar “Rokosz” to application of chemical crop protection, it is advisable to grow this species in conventional farms using integrated crop protection. The cultivar “Schwabenspelz”, on the other hand, can be recommended for cultivation in organic farms on account of its competitive ability and resistance.

Author Contributions

The authors contributed to this article in the following ways—conceptualization: M.H., D.G., and B.N.-D.; data curation: D.G., S.C., and J.Ł.; formal analysis: M.H., D.G., B.N.-D., A.N., Ł.W., and M.R.-B.; funding acquisition: M.H.; investigation: M.H., D.G., B.N.-D., and A.N.; methodology: M.H., D.G., B.N.-D., A.N., and Ł.W.; project administration: M.H.; supervision: M.H. and D.G.; writing—original draft: M.H., D.G., B.N.-D., S.C., and J. Ł.; writing—review and editing: M.H., D.G., S.C., and M.R.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Research supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland as the part of statutory activities of Department of Herbology and Plant Cultivation Techniques, University of Life Sciences in Lublin.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Szumiło, G.; Rachoń, L. Plonowanie i jakość ziarna jarej pszenicy orkisz w zależności od zastosowanego materiału siewnego. Pol. J. Agron. 2015, 20, 9–14. (in Polish). [Google Scholar]
  2. Stankowski, S.; Pużyński, S.; Sobolewska, M.; Biel, W. Effect of weed control and swing rate on the baking quality of spelt in comparison with common wheat. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 22, 604–610. [Google Scholar]
  3. Moudrý, J.; Konvalina, P.; Stehno, Z.; Capouchová, I.; Moudrý, J., Jr. Ancient wheat species can extendbiodiversity of cultivated crops. Sci. Res. Essays 2011, 6, 4273–4280. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andruszczak, S. Spelt wheat grain yield and nutritional value response to sowing rate and nitrogen fertilization. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2018, 28, 1476–1484. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kohajdová, Z.; Karovicová, J. Nutritional value and banking applications of pelt wheat. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2008, 7, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  6. Biel, W.; Jaroszewska, A.; Stankowski, S.; Sadkiewicz, J.; Bośko, P. Effects of genotype and weed control on the nutrient composition of Winter spelt (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) and common wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare). Acta Agric. Scand. B—S. P. 2016, 66, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  7. Konvalina, P.; Capouchova, I.; Stehno, Z.; Moudry, J. Agronomic characteristics of the spring forms of the wheat landraces (einkorn, emmer, spelt, intermediate bread wheat) grown in organic farming. J. Agrobiol. 2010, 27, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Vučković, J.; Bodroža-Solarov, M.; Vujić, D.; Bočarov-Stančić, A.; Bagi, F. The protective effect of hulls on the occurrence of Alternaria mycotoxins in spelt wheat. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1996–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kwiatkowski, C.A.; Wesołowski, M.; Pałys, E.; Kraska, P.; Haliniarz, M.; Nowak, A.; Andruszczak, S.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E. Aspekty proekologicznego gospodarowania w agroekosystemach. Wyd. Perfekta 2014, 169. (in Polish). [Google Scholar]
  10. Biel, W.; Stankowski, S.; Sobolewska, M.; Radkiewicz, J.; Jaroszewska, A.; Pużyński, S. Effect of selected agronomic factors on the banking quality of winter spelt strains and cultivars (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) in comparison with common wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare). Rom. Agric. Res. 2016, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  11. Petrenko, V.; Spychaj, R.; Prysiazhniuk, O.; Sheiko, T.; Khudolii, L. Evaluation of three wheat species (Triticum aestivum L., T. spelta L., T. dicoccum (Schrank) Schuebl) commonly used in organic cropping systems, considering selected parameters of technological quality. Rom. Agric. Res. 2018, 35, 255–264. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sulewska, H.; Koziara, W.; Panasiewicz, K.; Ptaszyńska, G. Plonowanie dwóch odmian ozimych orkiszu pszennego w zależności od terminu i ilości wysiewu w warunkach Środkowej Wielkopolski. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2008, 53, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
  13. Litwińczuk, M. Przyszłość orkiszu na Zamojszczyźnie. Available online: https://www.agropolska.pl/uprawa/zboza/przyszlosc-orkiszu-na-zamojszczyznie,209.html (accessed on 6 June 2020).
  14. Kraska, P.; Andruszczak, S.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E. Reaction of spelt wheat cultivars (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) to foliar applications of fertilizers. Agron. Sci. 2019, 74, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Świeca, M.; Dziki, D. Comparison of phenolic acids profile and antioxidant potential of six varieties of spelt (Triticum spelta L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 4603–4612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Jablonskytė-Raščė, D.; Maikštėnienė, S.; Mankevičienė, A. Evaluation of productivity and quality of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and spelt (Triticum spelta L.) in relation to nutrition conditions. Zemdirbyste 2013, 100, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kwiatkowski, C.; Haliniarz, M.; Tomczyńska-Mleko, M.; Mleko, S.; Kawecka-Radomska, M. The content of dietary fiber, amino acids, dihydroxyphenols and some macro- and micronutrients in grain of conventionally and organically grown common wheat, spelt wheat and proso millet. Agr. Food Sci. 2015, 24, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kraska, P.; Andruszczak, S.; Dziki, D.; Stocki, M.; Stocka, N.; Kwicińska-Poppe, E.; Różyło, K.; Gierasimiuk, P. Green grain of spelt (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) harvested at the stage of milk-dough as a rich source of valuable nutrients. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2019, 31, 263–270. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sliesaravičius, A.; Pekarskas, J.; Rutkovienė, V.; Baranauskis, K. Grain yield and disease resistance of winter cereal varieties and application of biological agent in organic agriculture. Agron. Res. 2006, 4, 371–378. [Google Scholar]
  20. Schober, T.J.; Beana, S.R.; Kuhn, M. Gluten proteins from spelt (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) cultivars: Arheological and size-exclusion high-performance liquid chromatography study. J. Cereal Sci. 2006, 44, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Glamočlija, D.; Žarković, B.; Dražić, S.; Radovanović, V.; Popović, V.; Urgenović, V. Morphological and productive characteristics spelt wheat on the chernozem and degraded soil. In Proceedings of XXVII Conference of Agronomists, Veterinarians, Technologists and Agricultural Economists, Belgrade, Serbia, 20–21 February 2013; Simić, D., Beskorovajni, R., Eds.; Institut PKB Agroekonomik: Belgrade, Serbia, 2013; pp. 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ugrenović, V.; Bodroža Solarov, M.; Pezo, L.; Disalov, J.; Popović, V.; Marić, B.; Filipović, V. Analysis of spelt variability (Triticum spelta L.) grown in different conditions of Serbia by organic conditions. Genetika 2018, 50, 635–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mankevičienė, A.; Jablonskytė-Raščė, D.; Maikštėnienė, S. Occurrence of mycotoxins in spelt and common wheat grain and their products. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control. Expo. Risk Assess. 2014, 31, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Feledyn-Szewczyk, B. Porównanie zdolności konkurencyjnych w stosunku do chwastów oraz plonów ziarna pszenicy orkisz (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) z odmianami pszenicy zwyczajnej (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare) w ekologicznym systemie produkcji. Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin. Agric. Aliment. Pisc. Zootech. 2012, 293, 13–26. (in Polish). [Google Scholar]
  25. Babenko, L.M.; Hospodarenko, H.M.; Rozhkov, R.V.; Pariy, Y.F.; Pariy, M.F.; Babenko, A.V.; Kosakivska, I.V. Triticum spelta: Origin, biological characteristics and perspectives for use in breeding and agriculture. Regul. Mech. Biosyst. 2018, 9, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Longin, C.F.H.; Würschum, T. Genetic variability, heritability and correlation among agronomic and disease resistance traits in a diversity panel and elite breeding material of spelt wheat. Plant. Breed. 2014, 133, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Korkhova, M.; Panfilova, A.; Chernova, A.; Rozhok, O. The effect of pre-sowing seed treatment with biopreparations on productivity of cultivars of Triticum spelta L. Agrolife Sci. J. 2019, 8, 120–127. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wojtkowiak, K.; Stępień, A. Nutritive value of spelt (Triticum aestivum spp. spelta L.) as influenced by the foliar application of copper, zinc and manganese. Zemdirbyste 2015, 102, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Wiwart, M.; Szafranska, A.; Wachowska, U.; Suchowilska, E. Quality parameters and rheological dough properties of 15 Spelt (Triticum spelta L.) varieties cultivated today. Cereal Chem. 2017, 94, 1037–1044. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zorovski, P.; Popov, V.; Georgieva, T. Growth and development of Triticum monococcum L., Triticum dicoccum Sch. and Triticum spelta L. in organic farming conditions. Contemp. Agric. Serb. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 67, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rachoń, L.; Szumiło, G.; Nita, Z. Plonowanie ozimych rodów Triticum durum i Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta w warunkach okolic Lublina. Agron. Sci. 2020, 64, 101–109. (in Polish). [Google Scholar]
  32. Andruszczak, S.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E.; Kraska, P.; Pałys, E. Yield of winter cultivars of spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta L.) cultivated under diversified conditions of mineral fertilization and chemical protection. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2011, 10, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mirek, Z.; Piękoś-Mirkowa, H.; Zając, A.; Zając, M. Flowering plants and pteridophytes of Poland a checklist. Krytyczna lista roślin naczyniowych Polski; W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences: Kraków, Poland, 2002; Volume 1, p. 442. [Google Scholar]
  34. PN-ISO 21527–2: “ Mikrobiologia żywności i Pasz. Horyzontalna Metoda Oznaczania Liczby Drożdży i pleśni”; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2009.
  35. Woźniak, A.; Nowakowicz-Dębek, B.; Stępniowska, A.; Wlazło, Ł. Effect of ozonation on microbiological and chemical traits of wheat grain Plant. Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Watanabe, T. Pictorial Atlas of Soil and Seed Fungi; CRS Press LLC.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; p. 486. [Google Scholar]
  37. Valle-Algarra, F.M.; Medina, A.; Gimeno-Adelantado, J.V.; Llorens, A.; Jimenez, M.; Mateo, R. Comparative assessment of solid-phase extraction clean-up procedures, GC columns and perfluoroacylation reagents for determination of type B trichothecenes in wheat by GCECD. Talanta 2005, 66, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Beres, B.L.; Harker, K.N.; Clayton, G.W.; Bremer, E.; Blackshaw, R.E.; Graf, R.J. Weed-competitive ability of spring and winter cereals in the Northern Great Plains. Weed Tech. 2010, 24, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Andruszczak, S.; Kraska, P.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E.; Pałys, E. Weed infestation of crops of winter spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta) cultivars grown under different conditions of mineral fertilization and chemical plant protection. Acta Agrobot. 2012, 65, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Andruszczak, S.; Kraska, P.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E.; Pałys, E. The effect of tillage system and herbicide application on weed infestation of crops of winter spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta L.) cultivars. Acta Agrobot. 2013, 66, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Korres, N.E.; Froud-Williams, R.J. Effect of winter wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological characteristics of naturally occurring weed flora. Weed Res. 2002, 42, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mason, H.E.; Spaner, D. Competitive ability of wheat in conventional and organic management systems: A review of the literature. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 2006, 86, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Andruszczak, S. Reaction of winter spelt cultivars to reduced tillage system and chemical plant protection. Zemdirbyste 2017, 104, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kurstjens, D.A.G.; Kropff, A.M. The impact of uprooting and soil-covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing. Weed Res. 2001, 41, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kapeluszny, J.; Dyńska, M.; Haliniarz, M. Wpływ sposobów pielęgnacji na zachwaszczenie dwóch linii pszenicy twardej (Triticum durum Desf.). Prog. Plant Prot. 2012, 52, 287–293. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hansen, P.K.; Rasmussen, I.A.; Holst, N.; Candreasen, C. Tolerance of four spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) varieties to weed harrowing. Weed Res. 2007, 47, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lundkvist, A. Effects of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals. Weed Res. 2009, 49, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pospišil, A.; Pospišil, M.; Svečnjak, Z.; Matotan, S. Influence of crop management upon the agronomic traits of spelt (Triticum spelta L.). Plant Soil Environ. 2011, 57, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pospišil, A.; Pospišil, M.; Brčić, M. Influence of seeding rate and nitrogen topdressing upon the agronomic traits of spelt (Triticum spelta L.). Rom. Agric. Res. 2016, 33, 235–240. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bankina, B.; Bimšteine, G.; Neusa-Luca, I.; Roga, A.; Fridmanis, D. What influences the composition of fungi in wheat grains? Acta Agrobot. 2017, 70, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Karron, E.; Runno-Paurson, E.; Lõiveke, H.; Islamov, B.; Kütt, M.L.; Talve, T.; Lauringson, E.; Hõrak, H.; Edesi, L.; Niinemets, Ü. Application of widely used fungicides does not necessarily affect grain yield, and incidence of Fusarium spp. and mycotoxins DON, HT-2 and T-2 in spring barley in northern climates. Kvas. prumys 2020, 66, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Binder, E.M.; Tan, L.M.; Chin, L.J.; Handl, J.; Richard, J. Worldwide occurence of mycotoxins in commodieties, feeds and feeds ingredients. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2007, 137, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sultan, Y.; Magan, N. Mycotoxigenic fungi in peanuts from different geographic regions of Egypt. Mycotox. Res. 2010, 26, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Bottalico, A.; Perrone, G. Toxigenic Fusarium species and mycotoxins associated with head blight in small-grain cereals in Europe. Eur J. Plant. Pathol. 2002, 108, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Orlando, B.; Grignon, G.; Vitry, C.; Kashefifard, K.; Valade, R. Fusarium species and enniatin mycotoxins in wheat, durum wheat, triticale and barley harvested in France. Mycotoxin Res. 2019, 35, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yli-Mattila, T.; Rämo, S.; Hussien, T.; Carlobos-Lopez, A.L.; Cumagun, C.J.R. Molecular quantification and genetic diversity of toxigenic Fusarium species in northern Europe as compared with those in southern Europe. Microorganisms 2013, 1, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hietaniemi, V.; Rämö, S.; Yli-Mattila, T.; Jestoi, M.; Peltonen, S.; Kartio, M.; Sieviläinen, E.; Koivisto, T.; Parikka, P. Updated survey of Fusarium species and toxins in Finnish cereal grains. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control. Expo. Risk Assess. 2016, 33, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Serrano, A.B.; Font, G.; Ruiz, M.J.; Ferrer, E. Co-occurrence and risk assessment of mycotoxins in food and diet from Mediterranean area. Food Chem. 2012, 135, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wiwart, M.; Perkowski, J.; Jackowiak, H.; Packa, D.; Borusiewicz, A.; Buoeko, M. Response of some cultivars of spring spelt (Triticum spelta) to Fusarium culmorum infection. Die Bodenkultur 2004, 55, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  60. Juan, C.; Ritieni, A.; Mañes, J. Occurrence of Fusarium mycotoxins in Italian cereal and cereal products from organic farming. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 1747–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Beres, B.L.; Brûlé-Babel, A.L.; Ye, Z.; Graf, R.J.; Turkington, T.K.; Harding, M.W.; Kutcher, H.R.; Hooker, D.C. Exploring Genotype × Environment × Management synergies to manage Fusarium head blight in wheat. Can. J. Plant. Pathol. 2018, 40, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bernhoft, A.; Torp, M.; Clasen, P.E.; Løes, A.K.; Kristoffersen, A.B. Influence of agronomic and climatic factors on Fusarium infestation and mycotoxin contamination of cereals in Norway. Food Addit. Contam. 2012, 29, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Blandino, M.; Reyneri, A.; Vanara, F. Effect of plant density on toxigenic fungal infection and mycotoxin contamination of maize kernels. Field Crop. Res. 2008, 106, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Blandino, M.; Reyneri, A.; Colombari, G.; Pietri, A. Comparison of integrated field programmes for the reduction of fumonisin contamination in maize kernels. Field Crop. Res. 2009, 111, 284–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Edwards, S.G. Influence of agricultural practices on Fusarium infection of cereals and subsequent contamination of grain by trichothecene mycotoxins. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 153, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bertuzzi, T.; Romani, M.; Rastelli, S.; Giorni, P. Mycotoxins and Related Fungi in Italian Paddy Rice During the Growing Season and Storage. Toxins 2019, 11, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Gorczyca, A.; Oleksy, A.; Gala-Czekaj, D.; Urbaniak, M.; Laskowska, M.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Stępień, Ł. Fusarium head blight incidence and mycotoxin accumulation in three durum wheat cultivars in relation to sowing date and density. Sci. Nat. 2018, 105, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. van der Burgt, G.J.H.M.; Timmermans, B.G.H.; Scholberg, J.M.S.; Osman, A.M. Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat as affected by nitrogen fertilization. NJAS—Wagen. J. Life Sci. 2011, 58, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Bérubé, M.E.; Vanasse, A.; Rioux, S.; Bourget, N.; Dion, Y.; Tremblay, G. Effect of glyphosate on Fusarium head blight in wheat and barley under different soil tillages. Plant. Dis. 2012, 96, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2007. Polish Nutritional Standards 2014. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R1126&from=EN (accessed on 17 April 2020).
Figure 1. The impact of seeding density on weed infestation indicators in the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” (a) and “Schwabenspelz” (b) (mean for 2013–2015). Note: * seeding density, **WI—number and air-dry weight of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, WII—number and air-dry weight of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), n.s.—not significant differences.
Figure 1. The impact of seeding density on weed infestation indicators in the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” (a) and “Schwabenspelz” (b) (mean for 2013–2015). Note: * seeding density, **WI—number and air-dry weight of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, WII—number and air-dry weight of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), n.s.—not significant differences.
Agriculture 10 00229 g001
Figure 2. The impact of crop protection system on number of dominant weeds species 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment in the spelt wheat cultivars "Rokosz" and "Schwabenspelz" (mean for 2013–2015). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) of number of weed species among different crop protection methods (A, B, C, D) (a) and seeding density (b). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Figure 2. The impact of crop protection system on number of dominant weeds species 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment in the spelt wheat cultivars "Rokosz" and "Schwabenspelz" (mean for 2013–2015). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) of number of weed species among different crop protection methods (A, B, C, D) (a) and seeding density (b). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Agriculture 10 00229 g002
Figure 3. The impact of crop protection system on number of dominant weeds species at the dough stage (BBCH 83–85) in the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” and “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) of number of weed species among different crop protection methods (A, B, C, D) (a) and seeding density (b). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Figure 3. The impact of crop protection system on number of dominant weeds species at the dough stage (BBCH 83–85) in the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” and “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) of number of weed species among different crop protection methods (A, B, C, D) (a) and seeding density (b). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Agriculture 10 00229 g003
Figure 4. Total number of fungi in the grain of spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (a) and cv. “Schwabenspelz” (b) (mean for 2014–2015). Note: * crop protection methods, ** seeding density.
Figure 4. Total number of fungi in the grain of spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (a) and cv. “Schwabenspelz” (b) (mean for 2014–2015). Note: * crop protection methods, ** seeding density.
Agriculture 10 00229 g004
Figure 5. Identified mold fungi in the grain of spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (%) (mean for 2014–2015). Note: * crop protection methods, ** seeding density.
Figure 5. Identified mold fungi in the grain of spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (%) (mean for 2014–2015). Note: * crop protection methods, ** seeding density.
Agriculture 10 00229 g005
Figure 6. Identified mold fungi in grain of spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (%) (mean for 2014–2015). Note: * crop protection methods, ** seeding density.
Figure 6. Identified mold fungi in grain of spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (%) (mean for 2014–2015). Note: * crop protection methods, ** seeding density.
Agriculture 10 00229 g006
Table 1. The rainfall and mean monthly air temperature in the growing season of spelt wheat, recorded by the Meteorological Station in Czesławice (Poland). LTA is the long term average.
Table 1. The rainfall and mean monthly air temperature in the growing season of spelt wheat, recorded by the Meteorological Station in Czesławice (Poland). LTA is the long term average.
YearsMonthsSeptember – August
SeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust
Rainfalls (mm)Sum
2012/
2013
40.4110.72917.460.33037.653.2103.3108.344.326.6661.1
2013/
2014
49.57.360.613.754.55.849.163.9230.2110.261.4102808.2
2014/
2015
21.827.524.157.850.915.848.639.1169.613.552.65.9527.2
LTA
1963–2010
59.545.64136.930.329.231.342.463.572.78069.5601.9
Temperature (°C)Mean
2012/
2013
14.67.75−3.4−4.4−1.3−2.67.414.918.118.718.77.8
2013/
2014
11.39.54.91.7−2.90.34.98.91315.219.618.38.7
2014/
2015
14.09.74.6−0.11.0−1.12.86.511.516.11921.98.8
LTA 1963–201013.17.92.9−1.3−3.0−1.71.87.713.616.518.317.77.8
Table 2. The weed infestation indicators in the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” showing the interaction between crop protection and years of research, and comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection. NW I—number of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, WW I—air-dry weight of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, NW II—number of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), WW II—air-dry weight of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Table 2. The weed infestation indicators in the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” showing the interaction between crop protection and years of research, and comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection. NW I—number of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, WW I—air-dry weight of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, NW II—number of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), WW II—air-dry weight of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
YearsCrop ProtectionNW I
(no. m−2)
WW I
(g m−2)
NW II
(no. m−2)
WW II
(g m−2)
2013A90.8 a68.66 a86.3 a158.06 a
B78.7 ab62.12 a58.3 a119.1 ab
C27.2 c5.68 b18 a21.7 c
D28.5 c8.18 b21.2 a25.33 c
2014A53 abc25.4 b56 a39.39 bc
B37.7 bc13.71 b42 a19.37 c
C28 c7.79 b32.3 a13.17 c
D31.3 bc6.51 b42 a19.87 c
2015A21.3c10.99b12 a13.13 c
B22.7c13.6b13.3 a17.25 c
C13.3c7.02b7.8 a5.09 c
D13.3c8.31b8.7 a9.11 c
Comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection (mean for 2013–2015)
pro-ecological (A, B)50,7 a32.41 a44.7 a61.05 a
chemical (C, D)23,6 b7.25 b21.7 b15.71 b
Table 3. The impact of crop protection system on weed infestation indicators in the spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). NW I—number of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, WW I—air-dry weight of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, NW II—number of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), WW II—air-dry weight of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Table 3. The impact of crop protection system on weed infestation indicators in the spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). NW I—number of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, WW I—air-dry weight of weeds 3–4 weeks after herbicide treatment, NW II—number of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85), WW II—air-dry weight of weeds at the dough stage of spelt wheat (BBCH 83–85). Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Crop ProtectionNW I
(no. m−2)
WW I
(g m−2)
NW II
(no. m−2)
WW II
(g m−2)
A44.3 a26.35 a33.7 a32.58 a
B43.8 ab21.95 a27.8 a25.22 a
C26.2 bc6.21 b16.8 a8.42 a
D24.2 c8.05 b22.9 a12.89 a
Comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection
pro-ecological (A, B)44 a24.15 a30.7 a28.9 a
chemical (C, D)25.2 b7.13 b19.9 a10.66 a
Table 4. The impact of crop protection system on selected yield components of the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (mean for 2013–2015). HP—height of plant, LE—length of ear, NE—number of ears per m2, WG—weight of grains per ear. The same letter means not significantly different values.
Table 4. The impact of crop protection system on selected yield components of the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (mean for 2013–2015). HP—height of plant, LE—length of ear, NE—number of ears per m2, WG—weight of grains per ear. The same letter means not significantly different values.
Crop ProtectionHP
(cm)
LE
(cm)
NE
(no. m−2)
WG
(g)
A106a8.3a417a1.1a
B104.2a8.4a421a1.15a
C105.5a8.6a413a1.15a
D99.9a8.5a459a1.33a
Comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection
pro-ecological (A, B)105.1a8.4a419a1.13a
chemical (C, D)102.7a8.5a436a1.24a
Table 5. The grain yield of the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz”. The interaction between crop protection and years of research, and comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection. Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 5. The grain yield of the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz”. The interaction between crop protection and years of research, and comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection. Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05).
Crop Protection201320142015
t ha−1
A2.43 d3.23 cd5.62 ab
B2.73 d3.31 cd5.66 ab
C3.57 cd3.19 cd5.73 a
D4.7 abc4.05 bcd6.1 a
Comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection (mean for 2013–2015)
pro-ecological (A, B)3.83 a
chemical (C, D)4.56 b
Table 6. The impact of crop protection system on selected yield components and grain yield of the spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). HP—height of plant, LE—length of ear, NE—number of ears per m2, WG—weight of grains per ear, Y—yield for the crop protection methods A–D.
Table 6. The impact of crop protection system on selected yield components and grain yield of the spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). HP—height of plant, LE—length of ear, NE—number of ears per m2, WG—weight of grains per ear, Y—yield for the crop protection methods A–D.
Crop ProtectionHP
(cm)
LE
(cm)
NE
(no. m−2)
WG
(g)
Y
(t ha−1)
A127.9 ab11.5 a357 a1.03 a3.12 a
B131.4 a11.5 a353 a1.14 a3.02 a
C128.9 ab11.2 a372 a1.09 a3.16 a
D119.3 b11.4 a389 a1.13 a3.56 a
Comparison of the pro-ecological and chemical crop protection
pro-ecological (A, B)129.6 a11.5 a355 a1.09 a3.07 a
chemical (C, D)124.1 a11.3 a381 a1.11 a3.36 a
Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Table 7. The impact of seeding density on selected yield components and grain yield of the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” and “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). HP–height of plant, LE–length of ear, NE–number of ears per m2, WG–weight of grains per ear, Y–yield.
Table 7. The impact of seeding density on selected yield components and grain yield of the spelt wheat cultivars “Rokosz” and “Schwabenspelz” (mean for 2013–2015). HP–height of plant, LE–length of ear, NE–number of ears per m2, WG–weight of grains per ear, Y–yield.
Seeding DensityHP
(cm)
LE
(cm)
NE
(no. m−2)
WG
(g)
Y
(t ha−1)
cv. “Rokosz”
optimum105.7 a8.7 a412 a1.22 a4.25 a
increased102.2 a8.3 b443 a1.15 a4.14 a
cv. “Schwabenspelz”
optimum125.9 a11.3 a350 a1.11 a3.24 a
increased127.9 a11.5 a386 a1.09 a3.25 a
Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Table 8. Mycotoxin content in wheat grain of the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (concentration of mycotoxins μg kg−1 of grain) (mean for 2014–2015). NIV—nivalenol , DAS—diacetoxyscirpenol, 15-AcDON—15-acetyldeoxynivalenol, DON—deoxynivalenol, ZEA—zearalenone, 3-AcDON—3-acetyldeoxynivalenol.
Table 8. Mycotoxin content in wheat grain of the spelt wheat cv. “Rokosz” (concentration of mycotoxins μg kg−1 of grain) (mean for 2014–2015). NIV—nivalenol , DAS—diacetoxyscirpenol, 15-AcDON—15-acetyldeoxynivalenol, DON—deoxynivalenol, ZEA—zearalenone, 3-AcDON—3-acetyldeoxynivalenol.
Experimental FactorsNIVDAS15-AcDONT-2DONZEAHT-2 Toxin3-AcDONFuzarenon XSum
Crop protection
A243b167b78b13a203a6b5c100b51c866b
B277b216a145a11a89b51a49b47c24c909b
C317a69c126a20a75b7b154a299a205a1272a
D16c0.5d75b-11c--295a150b548c
Seeding density
optimum345a87b132a6a141a9a100a193a99a1111a
increased82b139a79b17a48b23a4b177a117a685b
Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.
Table 9. Mycotoxin content in wheat grain of the spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (concentration of mycotoxins μg kg−1 of grain) (mean for 2014–2015). NIV—nivalenol, DAS—diacetoxyscirpenol, 15-AcDON—15-acetyldeoxynivalenol, DON—deoxynivalenol, ZEA—zearalenone, 3-AcDON—3-acetyldeoxynivalenol.
Table 9. Mycotoxin content in wheat grain of the spelt wheat cv. “Schwabenspelz” (concentration of mycotoxins μg kg−1 of grain) (mean for 2014–2015). NIV—nivalenol, DAS—diacetoxyscirpenol, 15-AcDON—15-acetyldeoxynivalenol, DON—deoxynivalenol, ZEA—zearalenone, 3-AcDON—3-acetyldeoxynivalenol.
Experimental FactorsNIVDAS15-AcDONT-2DONZEAHI-2 Toxin3-AcDONFuzarenon XSum
Crop protection
A227a47a135a316b--259a132a836a
B245a61a61b-54a-27a176b90c712a
C221a60a110a-14a-11a206ab107bc727a
D39b5b110a-11a--165b128ab457b
Seeding density
optimum258a73a110a1616a-5a264a163a904a
increased108b13b98a-26a-14b139b65b462b
Different letters denote significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). The same letter means not significantly different values.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haliniarz, M.; Gawęda, D.; Nowakowicz-Dębek, B.; Najda, A.; Chojnacka, S.; Łukasz, J.; Wlazło, Ł.; Różańska-Boczula, M. Evaluation of the Weed Infestation, Grain Health, and Productivity Parameters of Two Spelt Wheat Cultivars Depending on Crop Protection Intensification and Seeding Densities. Agriculture 2020, 10, 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060229

AMA Style

Haliniarz M, Gawęda D, Nowakowicz-Dębek B, Najda A, Chojnacka S, Łukasz J, Wlazło Ł, Różańska-Boczula M. Evaluation of the Weed Infestation, Grain Health, and Productivity Parameters of Two Spelt Wheat Cultivars Depending on Crop Protection Intensification and Seeding Densities. Agriculture. 2020; 10(6):229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haliniarz, Małgorzata, Dorota Gawęda, Bożena Nowakowicz-Dębek, Agnieszka Najda, Sylwia Chojnacka, Justyna Łukasz, Łukasz Wlazło, and Monika Różańska-Boczula. 2020. "Evaluation of the Weed Infestation, Grain Health, and Productivity Parameters of Two Spelt Wheat Cultivars Depending on Crop Protection Intensification and Seeding Densities" Agriculture 10, no. 6: 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060229

APA Style

Haliniarz, M., Gawęda, D., Nowakowicz-Dębek, B., Najda, A., Chojnacka, S., Łukasz, J., Wlazło, Ł., & Różańska-Boczula, M. (2020). Evaluation of the Weed Infestation, Grain Health, and Productivity Parameters of Two Spelt Wheat Cultivars Depending on Crop Protection Intensification and Seeding Densities. Agriculture, 10(6), 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060229

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop