Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:26:37.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitiveness of Three Leguminous Cover Crops with Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and Smooth Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Amanda S. Collins ,
Carlene A. Chase ,
William M. Stall  and
Chad M. Hutchinson
Amanda S. Collins
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Carlene A. Chase*
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Chad M. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cachase@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse replacement-series experiments were conducted to evaluate the competitiveness of cowpea, sunn hemp, and velvetbean when grown in combination with yellow nutsedge and smooth pigweed. The effect of the cover crop species on yellow nutsedge tuber production was also evaluated. Cowpea and velvetbean were equally competitive with yellow nutsedge, but sunn hemp was less competitive. Although sunn hemp height was double that of cowpea or velvetbean, photosynthetically active radiation penetrating to the soil surface was twofold to eightfold greater than with the other two species. Leaf area per plant with sunn hemp monocultures were only 63 to 70% of cowpea and 37 to 41% of velvetbean. Increasing the proportion of cover crops in crop : weed mixtures did not significantly affect nutsedge tuber number per plant or tuber weight per plant. Cowpea was more competitive than smooth pigweed, whereas both sunn hemp and velvetbean were less competitive than smooth pigweed. The utility and efficacy of leguminous cover crop species for nutsedge and smooth pigweed suppression do not appear to be due to inherent competitiveness. Until cultivars that are more competitive become available, cultural measures should be employed that enhance cover crop modification of soil environmental conditions to minimize weed seed germination and vegetative propagule sprouting.

Keywords

Smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPEScowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpsunn hemp, Crotalaria juncea Lvelvetbean, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. var. pruriensCompetitionsmooth amaranthreplacement series
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 613 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Abdul-Baki, A., Bryan, H. H., Zinati, G. M., Klassen, W., Codallo, M., and Heckert, N. 2001. Biomass yield and flower production in sunn hemp: effect of cutting the main stem. J. Veget. Crop Prod. 7:83–104.Google Scholar
Abdul-Baki, A. A., Klassen, W., Bryan, H. H., Codallo, M., Hima, B., Wang, Q. R., Li, Y., Lu, Y-C., and Handoo, Z. 2005. A biologically-based system for winter production of fresh-market tomatoes in South Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hortic Soc. 118:153–159.Google Scholar
Abdul-Baki, A. A., Teasdale, J. R., Korcak, R., Chitwood, D. J., and Huettel, R. N. 1996. Fresh-market tomato production in a low-input alternative system using cover crop mulch. Hortscience. 31:65–69.Google Scholar
Adler, M. J. and Chase, C. A. 2007. A comparative analysis of the allelopathic potential of leguminous summer cover crops: cowpea, sunn hemp and velvetbean. Hortscience. 42:289–293.Google Scholar
Akanvou, R., Bastiaans, L., Kropff, M. J., Goudrian, J., and Becker, M. 2001. Characterization of growth, nitrogen accumulation, and competitive ability of six tropical legumes for potential use in intercropping systems. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 187:111–120.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), palmer amaranth (A.palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Berry, A. D., Stall, W. M., Rathinasabapathi, B., MacDonald, G. E., and Charudattan, R. 2006. Aggressivity: cucumber vs. amaranth. Weed Technol. 20:986–991.Google Scholar
Caamal-Maldonado, J. A., Jiménez-Osornio, J. J., Torres-Barragán, A., and Anaya, A. L. 2001. The use of allelopathic legume cover and mulch species for weed control in cropping systems. Agron. J. 93:27–36.Google Scholar
Cherr, C. M., Scholberg, J. M. S., and McSorley, R. 2006. Green manure approaches to crop production: a synthesis. Agron. J. 98:302–319.Google Scholar
Collins, A. S. 2004. Leguminous Cover Crop Fallows for the Suppression of Weeds. . Gainesville, FL University of Florida. 117.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
De Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Verl. Landbouwdd. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
Harrison, H. F., Thies, J. A., and Fery, R. L. 2006. Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for use as a cover crop. Hortscience. 41:1145–1148.Google Scholar
Hector, A. 2006. Overyielding and stable species coexistence. New Phytol. 172:1–3.Google Scholar
Hill, E. C., Ngouajio, M., and Nair, M. G. 2006. Differential response of weeds and vegetable crops to aqueous extracts of hairy vetch and cowpea. Hortscience. 41:695–700.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39:575–584.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, C. M. and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2000. Cowpea cover crop mulch for weed control in desert pepper production. Hortscience. 35:196–198.Google Scholar
Ikeorgu, J. E. 1990. Glasshouse performance of three leafy vegetables grown in mixtures in Nigeria. Sci. Hortic. 43:181–188.Google Scholar
Knavel, D. E. and Herron, J. W. 1986. Response of vegetable crops to nitrogen rates in tillage systems with and without vetch and ryegrass. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 111:502–507.Google Scholar
Kroh, G. C. and Stephenson, S. N. 1980. Effects of diversity and pattern on relative yields of four Michigan first year fallow field plant species. Oecologia. 45:366–371.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Stroup, W. W., and Freund, R. J. 2002. SAS for Linear Models. 4th ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc. 466.Google Scholar
Lu, Y-C., Watkins, K. B., Teasdale, J. R., and Abdul-Baki, A. A. 2000. Cover crops in sustainable agriculture. Food Rev. Int. 16:121–157.Google Scholar
Masiunas, J. B., Weston, L. A., and Weller, S. C. 1995. The impact of rye cover crops on weed populations in a tomato cropping system. Weed Sci. 43:318–323.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Charudattan, R., Dusky, J. A., and Bewick, T. A. 2003. Above- and belowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato. Weed Sci. 51:181–185.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Hutchinson, C. M. 2003. Effect of cover crop and management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Prot. 22:57–64.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology. 2nd ed. New York J. Wiley. 589.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. A., Matthews, W. C. Jr., and Ehlers, J. D. 2005. Root-knot nematode resistant cover crops in tomato production systems. Agron. J. 97:1626–1635.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Bewick, T. A., Stall, W. M., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Competitive interactions of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:229–233.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, T. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Phosphorus effect on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Sci. 46:307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1996. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Prod. Agric. 9:475–479.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. Pages 247–270. in Hatfield, J.L., Buhler, D.D., Stewart, B.A. eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Abdul-Baki, A. A. 1998. Comparison of mixtures vs. monocultures of cover crops for fresh-market tomato production with and without herbicide. Hortscience. 33:1163–1166.Google Scholar
Unger, P. W. and Vigil, M. F. 1998. Cover crop effects on soil water relationships. J. Soil Water Conserv. 53:200–208.Google Scholar
[USDA–AMS] United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service 2000. The National Organic Program; Final Rule. Federal Register. 65 (246):80548–80684.Google Scholar
Wang, G., Ehlers, J. D., Ogbuchiekwe, E. J., Yang, S., and McGiffen, M. E. 2004. Competitiveness of erect, semierect, and prostrate cowpea genotypes with sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci. 52:815–820.Google Scholar
Wang, G., McGiffen, M. E., and Ehlers, J. D. 2006a. Competition and growth of six cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes, sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci. 54:954–960.Google Scholar
Wang, G., McGiffen, M. E., Ehlers, J. D., and Marchi, E. C. S. 2006b. Competitive ability of cowpea genotypes with different growth habit. Weed Sci. 54:775–782.Google Scholar
Weigelt, A. and Jolliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol. 91:707–720.Google Scholar