Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:10:14.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Infection by the Fungal Pathogen Colletotrichum coccodes Affects Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)-Soybean Competition in the Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Antonio Ditommaso
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Macdonald Campus of McGill Univ., Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Alan K. Watson
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Macdonald Campus of McGill Univ., Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Steve G. Hallett
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Macdonald Campus of McGill Univ., Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9

Abstract

Field research was conducted from 1990 through 1992 to evaluate the effect of the fungal pathogen, Colletotrichum coccodes, on velvetleaf intra- and interspecific (with soybean) competition across a range of monoculture and 1:1 mixture densities. In pure stand, application of this velvetleaf foliar pathogen had little impact on seed yield of the weed. In these plots, velvetleaf intraspecific competition stimulated vertical growth and favored the rapid replacement of diseased leaf tissue that had prematurely senesced. In mixtures, however, C. coccodes inoculation differentially influenced the yield of both species. In two of three years, C. coccodes inoculation reduced velvetleaf seed yields by, an average, 60% compared with yields for control (uninoculated) plants. Velvetleaf suffered greater yield losses from soybean interspecific competition in the presence of C. coccodes, especially at the lower planting densities. The decline in velvetleaf yield was primarily attributed to the stunting effect of the pathogen, which allowed soybean plants to grow above the weed. Consequently, soybean yield losses within inoculated mixture plots were generally lower than for control plots, although significant increases (23%) in soybean yield were recorded only in 1992. The inoculation treatment had relatively little impact on the number of seeds produced per fruit or seed unit weight in both species regardless of whether plants were grown in monocultures or in mixtures. The finding that C. coccodes has only a limited effect on velvetleaf performance in pure stand, while having a significantly greater effect in a competitive environment with a soybean crop, has important ramifications as to the value and accuracy of initial efficacy testing that rates potential biocontrol agents based solely on their effect within pure stands of the target weed.

Type
Weed Management
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Akey, W. C., Jurik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1990. Competition for light between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 30: 403411.Google Scholar
2. Akey, W. C., Jurik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1991. A replacement series evaluation of competition between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 31: 6372.Google Scholar
3. Andersen, R. N., Menges, R. M., and Conn, J. S. 1985. Variability in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and reproduction beyond its current range in North America. Weed Sci. 33: 507512.Google Scholar
4. Ayres, P. G. and Paul, N. D. 1990. The effects of disease on interspecific plant competition. Asp. Appl. Ecol. 24: 155162.Google Scholar
5. Begonia, G. B., Aldrich, R. J., and Salisbury, C. D. 1991. Soybean yield and yield components as influenced by canopy heights and duration of competition of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.). Weed Res. 31: 117124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Boyette, C. D., Abbas, H. K., and Connick, W. J. Jr. 1993. Evaluation of Fusarium oxysporum as a potential bioherbicide for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), coffee senna (Coccidentalis), and hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata). Weed Sci. 41: 678681.Google Scholar
7. Burdon, J. J., Groves, R. H., Kaye, P. E., and Speer, S. S. 1984. Competition in mixtures of susceptible and resistant genotypes of Chondrilla juncea differentially infected with rust. Oecol. 64: 199203.Google Scholar
8. Charudattan, R. 1988. Inundative control of weeds with indigenous fungal pathogens. Pages 86110 in Burge, M. N., ed. Fungi in Biological Control Systems. Manchester University Press, New York.Google Scholar
9. Crabbe, M. 1991. Velvetleaf hitches a ride on corn. Country Guide (October):3435.Google Scholar
10. Dekker, J. and Meggitt, W. F. 1983. Interference between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. I. Growth. Weed Res. 23: 91101.Google Scholar
11. DiTommaso, A. and Watson, A. K. 1995. Impact of a fungal pathogen, Colletotrichum coccodes on growth and competitive ability of Abutilon theophrasti . New Phytol. 131: 5160.Google Scholar
12. Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, K. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24: 224228.Google Scholar
13. Hagood, E. S. Jr., Bauman, T. T., Williams, J. L., and Schreiber, M. M. 1980. Growth analysis of soybeans (Glycine max) in competition with velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 28: 729734.Google Scholar
14. Higgins, R. A., Staniforth, D. W., and Pedigo, L. P. 1984. Effects of weed density and defoliated or undefoliated soybeans (Glycine max) on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) development. Weed Sci. 32: 511519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Hodgson, R. H., Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., Snyder, R. H., and Collette, A. 1988. Efficacy of Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2: 473480.Google Scholar
16. Jolliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 13: 513521.Google Scholar
17. Massion, C. L. and Lindow, S. E. 1986. Effects of Sphacelotheca holci infection on morphology and competitiveness of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 34: 883888.Google Scholar
18. Morin, L., Watson, A. K., and Reeleder, R. D. 1989. Efficacy of Phomopsis convolvulus for control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 37: 830835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., Cothren, J. T., and Hons, F. M. 1987. Soybean (Glycine max)-Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interspecific competition. Weed Sci. 35: 647653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean-(Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27: 183188.Google Scholar
21. Paul, N. D. and Ayres, P. G. 1986. Interference between healthy and rust-infected groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) within mixed populations of different densities and proportions. New Phytol. 104: 257269.Google Scholar
22. Paul, N. D. and Ayres, P. G. 1987. Effects of rust infection of Senecio vulgaris on competition with lettuce. Weed Res. 27: 431441.Google Scholar
23. Poirier, C. 1984. The etiology and host range of Colletotrichum coccodes, a possible biological control agent of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). . Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada. 240 pp.Google Scholar
24. Regnier, E. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1989. The effects of soybean (Glycine max) interference on the canopy architecture of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 37: 187195.Google Scholar
25. SAS Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Carey, NC. Release 6.03.Google Scholar
26. Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38: 407416.Google Scholar
27. Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans. Weed Sci. 33: 199202.Google Scholar
28. Watson, A. K. 1989. Current advances in bioherbicide research. Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds. 8B-3: 987996.Google Scholar
29. Watson, A. K. and Wymore, L. A. 1990. Identifying limiting factors in the biocontrol of weeds. Pages 305316 in Baker, R., and Dunn, P., eds. New Directions in Biological Control. UCLA Symposium of Molecular and Cellular Biology, New Series 112. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
30. Weidemann, G. J. and Templeton, G. E. 1988. Efficacy and soil persistence of Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae for control of Texas gourd (Cucurbita texana). Plant Dis. 72: 3638.Google Scholar
31. Winder, R. S. and Van Dyke, C. G. 1990. The pathogenicity, virulence, and biocontrol potential of two Bipolaris species on Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 38: 8994.Google Scholar
32. Wymore, L. A. and Watson, A. K. 1988. Interaction between the mycoherbicide [Colletotrichum coccodes (Wallr.) Hughes] and selected herbicides for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.) control under greenhouse conditions. WSSA Abstracts, p. 50 (#140), Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
33. Wymore, L. A. and Watson, A. K. 1989. Interaction between a velvetleaf isolate of Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in the field. Weed Sci. 37: 478483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1987. Interaction between Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35: 377383.Google Scholar
35. Wymore, L. A., Poirier, C., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1988. Colletotrichum coccodes, a potential bioherbicide for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Plant Dis. 72: 534538.Google Scholar