Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:27:51.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Selected Grass and Broadleaf Species to Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clifford H. Koger*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, Stoneville, MS 38776
Charles T. Bryson
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, Stoneville, MS 38776
John D. Byrd Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ckoger@ars.usda.gov

Abstract

Effects of cogongrass foliage and rhizome plus root residues on germination and shoot and root growth of barnyardgrass, bermudagrass, browntop millet, hemp sesbania, Italian ryegrass, and prickly sida were investigated in greenhouse experiments. Ground residues of dried cogongrass foliage and rhizomes plus roots were mixed separately with sterilized sand to obtain residue concentrations of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8%. These residue concentrations were investigated on bermudagrass and Italian ryegrass, and the 8% residue concentrations were also evaluated on hemp sesbania, prickly sida, barnyardgrass, and browntop millet. Foliage and rhizome plus root residues at concentrations as low as 0.25% inhibited seed germination and shoot and root growth of all species except hemp sesbania. Germination of bermudagrass and Italian ryegrass was reduced by as much as 97% and shoot and root growth by as much as 94% at the highest residue concentrations. Rhizome plus root residues reduced germination and shoot and root growth of bermudagrass and Italian ryegrass more than foliage residues. Foliage and rhizome plus root residues reduced germination and shoot and root biomass of prickly sida, barnyardgrass, and browntop millet at similar levels. Results indicate that cogongrass tissue may contain allelochemicals that contribute to its invasiveness and extreme competitiveness.

Type
Research
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

Akobundo, I. O. and Agyakwa, C. W. 1998. A Handbook of West African Weeds. 2nd ed. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. 496 p.Google Scholar
Brown, D. 1944. Anatomy and reproduction in Imperata cylindrica . Joint Publ. 7:1518. UK: Imperial Agricultural Bureaux. 66 p.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and Carter, R. 1993. Cogongrass, Imperata cylindrica, in the United States. Weed Technol. 7:10051009.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Bryson, C. T. 1999. Biology, ecology, and control of cogongrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv]. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Bureau of Plant Industry, Fact Sheet 1999-01. 2 p.Google Scholar
Casini, P., Vecchio, V., and Tamantini, I. 1998. Allelopathic interference of itchgrass and cogongrass: germination and early development of rice. Trop. Agric. 75:445451.Google Scholar
Colie, N. C. and Shilling, D. G. 1993. Cogongrass, Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.: A Good Grass Gone Bad. Gainesville, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Botany Circular, Vol. 28. 3 p.Google Scholar
Dickens, R. 1974. Cogongrass in Alabama after sixty years. Weed Sci. 22:177179.Google Scholar
Dickens, R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1971. Old weed in a new home—that's cogongrass. High. Agric. Res. 18:2.Google Scholar
Dozier, H., Gaffney, J. F., McDonald, S. K., Johnson, E. R. L., and Shilling, D. G. 1998. Cogongrass in the United States: history, ecology, impacts, and management. Weed Technol. 12:737743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed survey—southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:136158.Google Scholar
Eussen, J. H. H. and Wirjahardja, S. 1973. Studies of an alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.) vegetation. Biotrop. Bull. 6:124.Google Scholar
Falvey, J. L. 1981. Imperata cylindrica and animal production in southeastern Asia: a review. Trop. Grassl. 15:5256.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plant without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station Circ. 347.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. B., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Hubbard, C. E. 1944. Imperata cylindrica . Taxonomy, Distribution, Economic significance, and Control. Imperial Agricultural Bureau Joint Publ. 7. Aberystwyth, Wales, UK: Imperial Bureau of Pastures and Forage Crops. 53 p.Google Scholar
Inderjit, , and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1991. Investigations on some aspects of chemical ecology of cogongrass. Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:343352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inderjit, M. Kaur and Foy, C. L. 2001. On the significance of field studies in allelopathy. Weed Technol. 15:792797.Google Scholar
Koch, W., Grobbmann, F., Weber, A., Lutzeyer, H. J., and Akobundu, I. O. 1990. Weeds as components of maize/cassava cropping systems. in von Oppen, M. ed. Standortgemaesse landwirtschaft in West Africa. Stuttgart, Germany: Universitaet Hohenheim. Pp. 219244.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2001. SAS User's Guide. Release 8.2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 20852226.Google Scholar
Udensi, E. U., Akobundu, I. O., Ayeni, A. O., and Chikoye, D. 1999. Management of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) with velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) and herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:201208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willard, T. R., Hall, D. W., Shilling, D. G., Lewis, J. A., and Currey, W. L. 1990. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) distribution on Florida highway rights-of-way. Weed Technol. 4:658660.Google Scholar