Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:25:02.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Density and Species Proportion Effects on Interference between Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and Round-Leaved Mallow (Malva pusilla)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw  and
G. Bruce Schaalje
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agric. Can. Res. Stn., Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
G. Bruce Schaalje
Affiliation:
Agric. Can. Res. Stn., Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interference between redstem filaree and round-leaved mallow was studied under controlled environmental conditions. Each species was grown in monoculture at densities of 2, 4, 8, and 12 plants per 20-cm-diam pot and in mixtures at all possible combinations of these densities. Leaf area per plant was similar for both species but round-leaved mallow grew taller and produced more shoot biomass than redstem filaree when each was grown in monoculture. Mixed culture responses varied with the proportion density of each species. A reciprocal yield model was tested and modified to account for this significant density interaction. When grown in mixture, round-leaved mallow usually gained in leaf area and shoot biomass at the expense of redstem filaree indicating that it was the superior competitor. Calculated competition ratios indicate that round-leaved mallow was about twice as competitive as redstem filaree under the growing conditions of this study.

Keywords

Redstem filaree, Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Her. ex Ait. # EROCIround-leaved mallow, Malva pusilla Sm. # MALNECompetition-methodologystork's-billweed biologyEROCIMALNE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 594 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Alberta Agriculture. 1992. Pages 31–152 in Crop Protection with Chemicals. Agdex 606-1, 7000-113 St., Edmonton, AB.Google Scholar
2. Alberta Agriculture. 1990. Alberta Cereals and Oilseeds Crop Protection Survey. 7000-113 St., Edmonton, AB. 55 pp.Google Scholar
3. Holt, J. S. 1991. Applications of physiological ecology to weed science. Weed Sci. 39:521–528.Google Scholar
4. Makowski, R.M.D. and Morrison, I. N. 1989. The biology of Canadian weeds. 91. Malva pusilla Sm. (=M. rotundifolia L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:861–879.Google Scholar
5. Patterson, D. T. 1990. Effects of density and species proportion on competition between spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38:351–357.Google Scholar
6. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Pages 93–115 in Weed Ecology. Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
7. Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276–284.Google Scholar
8. Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Peterson, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268–275.Google Scholar
9. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. 4th ed. Vol. 1. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 943 pp.Google Scholar
10. SAS Institute, Inc. 1992. SAS Technical Report P-229, SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.07. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 620 pp.Google Scholar
11. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
12. Wright, A. J. 1981. The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. J. Agric. Sci. 96:561–567.Google Scholar