Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:45:30.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Common Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) Interference in Onions (Allium cepa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert M. Menges
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Weslaco, TX 78596
Simon Tamez
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Weslaco, TX 78596

Abstract

Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) interference in onions (Allium cepa L. ‘Yellow Granex PRR’) was studied at different weed densities and periods of interference. Onion yields were reduced when the highest density (360/m2) of common sunflower interference with onions from 6 weeks after emergence and when sunflower at densities of 50/m2 and 5/m2 interfered for 12 and 15 weeks after emergence, respectively. Yield was not reduced if the crop was kept weed-free for 2 to 12 weeks after emergence with the shortest weed-free periods of 2 and 6 weeks requiring high light irradiance and high soil temperature and intermediate soil moisture. Climatic factors were more useful than weed density in explaining differential interference of sunflower in onions. Onion yield was negatively linearly correlated (P<0.05) with sunflower fresh weight, but was not linearly correlated with sunflower height.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338344.Google Scholar
2. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Plant competition on analysis of community functions. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 398. 36 pp.Google Scholar
3. Hewson, R. T. and Roberts, H. A. 1971. The effect of weed removal at different times on the yield of bulb onions. J. Hortic. Sci. 46:471483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hewson, R. T. and Roberts, H. A. 1973. Some effects of weed competition on the growth of onions. J. Hortic. Sci. 48:5157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Johnston, D. N., Wicks, G. A., and Nuland, D. S. 1969. The influence of annual weed competition on sweet Spanish onions. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 26:163164.Google Scholar
6. Menges, R. M. and Tamez, S. 1981. Response of onion (Allium cepa) to annual weeds and postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 29:7479.Google Scholar
7. Orwick, P. L. and Schrieber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta – alba) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665674.Google Scholar
8. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1979. Effects of chilling on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) and spurred Anoda (Anoda cristata . Weed Sci. 27:473479.Google Scholar
9. Putnam, A. R., Werner, G. M., Boldt, P. E., and Adams, N. E. 1978. Interference between common purslane and onions on organic soils (Abstract.). Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:171.Google Scholar
10. Shadbolt, C. A. and Holm, L. G. 1956. Some quantitative aspects of weed competition in vegetable crops. Weeds 4:111123.Google Scholar
11. Wicks, G. A., Johnston, D. N., Nuland, D. S., and Kinbacher, E. J. 1973. Competition between annual weeds and sweet Spanish onions. Weed Sci. 21:436439.Google Scholar
12. Williams, C. E., Crabtree, G., Mack, H. J., and Laws, W. D. 1973. Effect of spacing on weed competition in sweet corn, snap beans and onions. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 98:526529.Google Scholar
13. Wilson, R. E. and Rice, E. L. 1968. Allelopathy as expressed by Helianthus annuus and its role in old-field succession. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 95:432448.Google Scholar