Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:51:33.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incident photosynthetically active radiation as a basis for integrated management of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Christophe Neeser ,
Renan Aguero  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Christophe Neeser
Affiliation:
Crop Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Renan Aguero
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences, University of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Crop Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Artificial shading studies indicated that competition for photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) will limit tuber production in purple nutsedge. There were no data available to test whether there is a relationship between incident PAR underneath crop canopies and tuber production of this weed. In this study, the effect of crop competition on net reproductive rates of purple nutsedge tubers was measured under field conditions. Purple nutsedge plants were grown in association with bush beans, maize, maize and beans intercropped, sweet potato, pole beans, and bell pepper in a 2-yr field study in Costa Rica. Measurements were taken on the number of tubers produced during the growing season of each crop, and PAR transmittance was monitored weekly for the duration of the respective cropping cycles. Data on transmittance and incident solar radiation were used to calculate the daily average amount of PAR, available 15 cm above the soil surface. Regressions indicated that average incident PAR accounted for 95% of the variation in net reproductive rates. Average incident PAR also allowed a more precise competitive ranking of crops than either average or minimum transmittance. Bush beans had consistently the lowest average incident PAR values and therefore ranked as the most competitive crop in both years. Our data suggest that no net increase in tuber populations occurs if average incident PAR is below 2.7 MJ m−2 d−1. Differences in the duration of the cropping cycle accounted only for a small proportion of the overall variation in net reproductive rates of purple nutsedge tubers. Information on the competitive ranking of different crops can be used to design crop rotations that could reduce reliance on herbicides on small farms in Costa Rica.

Keywords

Purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L.maize = corn, Zea mays L. ‘Diamantes 843’bush beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Dor 390’pole beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Brunca’sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘C-97’bell pepper, Capiscum annum L.Tubernet reproductive ratetransmittancepopulation dynamicsCYPRO
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 6 , December 1997 , pp. 777 - 783
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R. E. 1980. Regression Diagnostics. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 33–39.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D. and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Evaluation of three empirical models depicting Ambrosia artemisiifolia competition in white bean. Weed Res. 35: 421–428.Google Scholar
Cruz, R. de-la and Merayo, A. 1990. Management of Cyperus rotundus L. in certain tropical agricultural areas. (Manejo de Cyperus rotundus L. en algunas áreas agrícolas tropicales). Manejo-Integrada de Plagas 16: 41–48.Google Scholar
Davis, J.H.C. and Garcia, S. 1983. Competitive ability and growth habit of indeterminate beans and maize for intercropping. Field Crops Res. 6: 59–75.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. and Piedrahita, W. 1982. Effect of glyphosate on the sprouting of Cyperus rotundas L. tubers. Weed Res. 22: 123–128.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. 1962a. Establishment of nutsedge from space planted tubers. Weeds 10: 209–212.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. 1962b. Development of purple nutsedge under field conditions. Weeds 10: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, pp. 8–24.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential for weed management. Weed Sci. 43: 474–482.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972a. Effects of frequent clipping on three perennial weeds, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Sorghum halepcnse (L.) Pers. and Cyperus rotundus L. Expl. Agric. 8: 225–234.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972b. Growth, tuber formation and spread of Cyperus rotundus L. from single tubers. Weed Res. 12: 348–363.Google Scholar
Jordan-Molero, J. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1978. Seasonal development of yellow and purple nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) in Illinois. Weed Sci. 26: 614–618.Google Scholar
Kaimowitz, D. 1993. Agricultural research and extension in Latin America: the agenda for the nineties. Rural Sociol. 13: 5–14.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. 1987. Interferences and interactions of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) with crops. Weed Technol. 1: 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26: 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiniry, J. R. 1994. Radiation-use efficiency and grain yield of maize competing with johnsongrass. Agron. J. 86: 554–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labrada, R., Gonzales, F., Hernandez, J., and Baez, J. 1985. Bioecology of Cyperus rotundus . I. Phenology, reproduction and vegetative growth. (Particularidades bioecológicas de Cyperus rotundus. I. Estadios fenológicos, dinámica reproductiva y capacidad vegetativa.) Agrotecnia de Cuba 17: 47–55.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Kropff, M. J. 1996. Application of an ecophysiological model for irrigated rice (Oryza sativa)-Echinochloa competition. Weed Sci. 44: 52–56.Google Scholar
Magalhāes, A. C. 1967. Effect of light on purple nutsedge growth, Cyperus rotundus L. (Observaçés sǒbre o efeito de luz no crescimento da tiririca, Cyperus rotundus L.). Bragantia 26: 131–142.Google 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.Google Scholar
Meek, D. W., Hatfield, J. L., Howell, T. A., Idso, S. B., and Reginato, R. J. 1984. A generalized relationship between photosynthetically active radiation and solar radiation. Agron. J. 76: 939–945.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. 1994. Validity of the correlation between intercepted radiation and biomass. Agric. For. Meteorol. 68: 213–220.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.Google Scholar
Neeser, C. 1997. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) Population Dynamics and Implications for Weed Management in Costa Rica. . University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. 147 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 30: 25–30.Google Scholar
Pereira, W., Crabtree, G., and William, R. D. 1987. Herbicide action on purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) Weed Technol. 1: 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, J. K. and Harrison, H. F. Jr. 1995. Sweet potato allelopathic substance inhibits growth of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Weed Technol. 9: 277–280.Google Scholar
Pomareda, C. and Jiménez, M. 1992. The Role of Agriculture in the Economic Development of Central America in the Nineties (La Agricultura en el Desarollo Económico de Centroamerica en los 90). San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Interamercano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, 200 p.Google Scholar
Rezende, G.D.S. and Ramalho, M.A.P. 1994. Competitive ability of maize and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars intercropped in different environments. J. Agric. Sci. 123: 185–190.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of imazethapyr to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 7: 900–905.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. W. 1982. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. 2nd ed. London: Longman, p. 6.Google Scholar
Siriwardana, G. and Nishimoto, R. K. 1987. Propagules of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in soil. Weed Technol. 1: 217–220.Google Scholar
Thullen, R. J. and Keeley, P. E. 1979. Seed production and germination in Cyperus esculentus and Cyperus rotundus . Weed Sci. 27: 502–505.Google Scholar
William, R. D. 1976. Purple nutsedge: tropical scourge. Hort Science 11: 357–364.Google Scholar
Woolley, J. N. and Rodríguez, W. 1987. Cultivar by cropping system interactions in relay and row intercropping of bush beans with different maize plant types. Expl. Agric. 23: 181–192.Google Scholar