Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:50:44.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Paul Cowan ,
Susan E. Weaver  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Paul Cowan
Affiliation:
Crop Sciences Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Center, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to determine the influence of time of emergence and density of single and multispecies populations of pigweed and barnyardgrass on soybean yield and competitive abilities of pigweed and barnyardgrass. Pigweed and barnyardgrass were established at selected densities within 12.5 cm on either side of the soybean row. Pigweed and barnyardgrass seeds were sown concurrently with soybean and at the cotyledon stage of soybean growth. Time and density of pigweed and barnyardgrass seedling emergence relative to soybean influenced the magnitude of soybean yield loss. Maximum soybean yield loss ranged from 32 to 99%, depending upon time of emergence relative to soybean. Pigweed was more competitive than barnyardgrass across all locations, years, and time of weed emergence. When pigweed was assigned a competitive index of 1 on a scale from 0 to 1, the competitive ability of barnyardgrass ranged from 0.075 to 0.40 of pigweed, depending upon location and time of emergence. This is the first multiple weed species study to include time of weed emergence relative to the crop. Competitive index values for multiple weed species must be calculated from field experiments in which weeds are grown with the crop under differing environmental conditions.

Keywords

Powell amaranth, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. AMAPOredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pride KG 60’ and ‘Pioneer 9302.'Integrated weed managementmultispecies interferencemultiple weed speciesmixed weed populationsthresholdtime of emergenceweed densityyield losscompetitive indexAMAPOAMAREECHCG
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , October 1998 , pp. 533 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Adcock, T. E. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Effects of preemergence herbicides on the competitiveness of selected weeds. Weed Sci. 39: 54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alex, J. F. 1970. Competition of Saponaria vaccaria and Sinapis arvensis in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50: 379–388.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Field Crop Recommendations 1995–1996. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Publication 296. 96 p.Google Scholar
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
Berti, A. and Zanin, G. 1994. Density equivalent: a method for forecasting yield loss caused by mixed weed populations. Weed Res. 34: 327–332.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Effects of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) on growth, yield, and nutrient status of transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon sculentum). Weed Sci. 36: 775–779.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Anderson, G. W., and Dekker, J., 1987. Interference of Sinapis arvensis L. and Chenopodium album L. in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Weed Res. 27: 207–213.Google Scholar
Bosnie, A. Č. and Swanton, C. J. 1997a. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays) . Weed Sci. 45: 276–282.Google Scholar
Bosnić, A. Č. and Swanton, C. J. 1997b. Economic decision for postemergence herbicide control of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in corn (Zea mays) Weed Sci. 45: 557–563.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays) . Weed Sci. 43: 81–87.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43: 375–380.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6: 898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, H. D. 1986. Development and implementation of economic thresholds for soybean. Pages 295-307 in Frisbie, R. E. and Adkisson, P. L., eds. CIPM: Integrated Pest Management on Major Agricultural Systems. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. 1994. Future directions and needs for weed science research. Weed Technol. 8: 410–412.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol. 6: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max) . Weed Res. 44: 126–132.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max) . Weed Res. 3: 612–618.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 458–517.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stages of Soybean Development. Special Rep. 80. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 12 p.Google Scholar
Haizel, K. A. and Harper, J. L. 1973. The effects of density and the timing of removal on interference between barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), white mustard (Sinapis alba L.), and wild oats (Avena fatua L.). J. Appl. Ecol. 10: 23–31.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Y. and Tamhane, A. C. 1987. Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: J. Wiley. 450 p.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1989. Yield losses in wheat due to weed communities dominated by green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beav.): a multi-species approach. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69: 521–529.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28: 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992. Systems approaches to quantify crop–weed interactions and their application in weed management. Agric. Syst. 40: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea ways)–velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44: 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muzik, T. J. 1970. Competition. Page 60 in Muzik, T. J., ed. Weed Biology and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 6: 220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) . Weed Sci. 33: 498–503.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2: 398–403.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22: 895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide. Version 6.06. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Lauridson, T. C. 1985. Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powelli) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 33: 518–520.Google Scholar
Sims, B. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Mutual influence of seedling johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and soybean (Glycine max) . Weed Sci. 38: 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siriwardana, G. D. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Competition between barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) . Weed Sci. 32: 218–222.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
Street, J. E., Snipes, C. E., McGuire, J. A., and Buchanan, G. A. 1985. Competition of a binary weed system with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33: 807–809.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Combellack, J. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29: 117–126.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44: 437–445.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994a. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42: 103–109.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Sterns, J., Renner, K., and Kells, J. 1994b. Estimating Weed–Crop Interference Parameters for Weed Management Models. Research Report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University. 20 p.Google Scholar
Toler, J. E., Guice, J. B., and Murdock, E. C. 1996. Interference between johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and soybean Glycine max) . Weed Sci. 44: 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vail, G. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1993. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in soybeans (Glycine max) . Weed Technol. 7: 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C. 1996. Multiple-Weed Species Interference in Broadleaved Crops: Evaluation of Yield Loss Prediction and Competition Models. Ph.D. thesis. University of Reading, Reading, Great Britain. 180 p.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41: 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) . Weed Sci. 38: 338–343.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5: 674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35: 163–168.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. M. and Binning, L. K. 1987. Calculating the threshold temperature of development for weeds. Weed Sci. 35: 177–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Wright, K. J. 1990. Predicting the growth and competitive effects of annual weeds in wheat. Weed Res. 30: 201–211.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Berti, A., and Toniolo, L. 1993. Estimation of economic thresholds for weed control in winter wheat. Weed Res. 33: 459–467.Google Scholar