Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:27:03.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert G. Hartzler ,
Bruce A. Battles  and
Dawn Nordby
Bruce A. Battles
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Dawn Nordby
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in central Iowa to determine the growth of common waterhemp emerging after postemergence herbicide applications in soybean. Common waterhemp survival declined as emergence was delayed in relation to soybean. Ninety percent of plants emerging at approximately the same time as soybean survived, whereas only 13% of plants emerging approximately 50 d after planting (DAP) survived to maturity. Biomass accumulation declined rapidly as emergence was delayed in relation to soybean. Delaying emergence from 14 to 28 DAP resulted in a 50 to 80% reduction in shoot biomass. Common waterhemp emerging 50 DAP produced only 1 to 10% of the biomass of plants emerging at the same time as soybean. Plants emerging with soybean produced approximately 300,000 to 2.3 million seeds plant−1 depending on the location. Fecundity of common waterhemp plants was closely related to biomass accumulation and declined rapidly with delayed emergence. Although common waterhemp emerging after the V4 stage of soybean (40 DAP) are unlikely to affect crop yield because of high mortality levels and reduced growth, these plants may contribute significant seeds to the soil seed bank.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrAMATAcritical perioddelayed emergencefecundity
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 242 - 245
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

Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci 40:241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Influence of tillage systems on annual weed densities and control in solid-seeded soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 38:158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean. Weed Sci 46:533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dielman, A., Hammill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Quintanilla, C., Navarette, L., Anduajar, J. L. G., Fernandez, A., and Sanchez, M. J. 1986. Seedling recruitment and age-specific survivorship and reproduction in populations of Avena sterilis L. ssp. ludoviciana (Durieu) Nyman. J. Appl. Ecol 23:945–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci 46:514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Simmons, R. W., and Stoller, E. W. 1997. Waterhemp Management in Agronomic Crops. University of Illinois Bull. X855. 12 p.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol 11:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z. and Horak, M. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 46:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Vanderlip, R. L., and Horak, M. J. 2001. Relative time of redroot pigweed emergence affects dry matter partitioning. Weed Sci 49:617–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Wiese, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Maxwell, B. D., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1995. Velvetleaf recruitment, survival, seed production, and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 41:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Calloway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol 29:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2003. Late season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 43:18.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci 3:155–181.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1985. Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology 66:743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. and Thomas, S. C. 1986. Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47:211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar