Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:51:13.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Ecophysiological Models for Crop-Weed Interference: The Critical Period of Weed Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S. E. Weaver ,
M. J. Kropff  and
R.M.W. Groeneveld
S. E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Res. Sci., Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1G0
M. J. Kropff
Affiliation:
Dep. Theor. Prod. Ecol., Agric. Univ., P.O.B. 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands
R.M.W. Groeneveld
Affiliation:
Centre for Agrobiol. Res., P.O.B. 14, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The performance of a mechanistic simulation model of crop-weed competition was tested with data on the critical period of weed competition in sugarbeets and both seeded and transplanted tomatoes. In general, there was good agreement between simulated and observed yields for different periods of weed interference in each crop. The model was then used to evaluate the influence of weed density, weed height, and weather conditions on timing of the critical period. Simulations suggested that the greater the weed density, the shorter the period of time that the crop could tolerate early-season competition, and the longer the period of time that the crop must be kept weed free to prevent yield losses. Simulations also suggested that the length of time that a crop can tolerate early-season weed competition is related more to the availability of soil moisture, or possibly essential nutrients, than to light limitations.

Keywords

Sugar-beet, Beta vulgaris L.‘Monohil′tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L.‘TH318’ and‘Springset′Simulationinterferencesugarbeettomatoredroot pigweedAmaranthus retroflexus L. #3 AMARElambsquartersChenopodium album L. #3 CHEAL
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 302 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Atherton, J. G. and Rudich, J. 1986. The tomato crop: A scientific basis for improvement. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bassett, I. T. and Crompton, C. W. 1978. The biology of Canadian Weeds. 32. Chenopodium album L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:1061–1072.Google Scholar
3. Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1986. The concept of period thresholds. Pages 327–331 in Proc. EWRS Symp. Economic Weed Control. Google Scholar
5. Groot, W. de and Groeneveld, R.M.W. 1986. Weed control in sugarbeets in relation to the onset of the critical period of weed competition. Gewosbeschumiy 17:171–178 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
6. Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1991. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: Relations amongst weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area, and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40:296–301.Google Scholar
8. Nieto, J. N., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS (C) 14:159–166.Google Scholar
9. Penning de Vries, F.W.T. and van Laar, H. H., eds. 1982. Simulation of plant growth and crop production. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
10. Spitters, C.J.T. 1989. Weeds: Population dynamics, germination and competition. Pages 147–181 in Rabbinge, R., Ward, S. A., and van Laar, H. H., eds. Simulation and Systems Management in Crop Protection. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
11. Spitters, C.J.T. and Aerts, R. 1983. Simulation of competition for light and water in crop-weed associations. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:467–483.Google Scholar
12. Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, A. powellii and A. hybridus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Wats, and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1215–1234.Google Scholar
14. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
15. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1987. Critical period of weed interference in field-seeded tomatoes and its relation to water stress and shading. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:573–581.Google Scholar
16. Weaver, S. E., Tan, C. S., and Brain, P. 1988. Effect of temperature and soil moisture on time of emergence of tomatoes and four weed species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:877–886.Google Scholar
17. Wit, C. T. de, et al. 1978. Simulation of assimilation respiration and transpiration of crops. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar