Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:17:46.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Canopy Architecture and Interference Studies in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Theodore M. Webster ,
Mark M. Loux ,
Emilie E. Regnier  and
S. Kent Harrison
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Emilie E. Regnier
Affiliation:
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
S. Kent Harrison
Affiliation:
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were established at Columbus and near South Charleston, OH to determine the effects of giant ragweed population density on soybean yield and to characterize the development of giant ragweed grown in 76-cm soybean rows. An economic threshold was calculated for Ohio using a common treatment for giant ragweed control in soybean. A cost of $41/ha was estimated for a farmer to apply 0.56 kg/ha bentazon plus 0.28 kg/ha fomesafen plus COC (1.25% v/v). Assuming a soybean value of $0.22/kg, the cost of control was equivalent to 5.4 and 7.1% of the soybean yield in 1991 and 1992, respectively, which corresponded to the yield loss caused by 0.08 and 0.03 giant ragweed plants/m2. The competitiveness of giant ragweed can be at least partly attributed to its ability to initiate and maintain axillary leaves and branches within the shaded confines of the soybean canopy.

Keywords

Bentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxidefomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamidegiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. # AMBTRsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pella 88,’ ‘Resnik,’ ‘Countrymark 343.’Branchingcompetitioncompetitive threshold densityleaf abscissionleaf areanodes
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 559 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Abul-Fatih, H. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. II. Germination, emergence, growth, and survival. New Phytol. 83:817–827.Google Scholar
2. Abul-Fatih, H. A., Bazzaz, F. A., and Hunt, R. 1979. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. III. Growth and biomass allocation. New Phytol. 83:829–838.Google Scholar
3. Basset, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:1003–1010.Google Scholar
4. Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1991. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:358–362.Google Scholar
5. Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:556–559.Google Scholar
6. Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1981. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:339–341.Google Scholar
7. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
8. Hagood, E. S. Jr., Bauman, T. T., Williams, J. L. Jr., and Schrieber, M. M. 1981. Growth analysis of soybeans (Glycine max) in competition with jimsonweed (Datura stramonium). Weed Sci. 29:500–504.Google Scholar
9. Harnett, D. C., Harnett, B. B., and Bazzaz, F. A. 1987. Persistence of Ambrosia trifida populations in old fields and responses to successional changes. Am. J. Bot. 74:1239–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Keisling, T. C., Oliver, L. R., Crowley, R. H., and Baldwin, F. L. 1984. Potential use of response surface analyses for weed management in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:552–557.Google Scholar
12. Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.Google Scholar
13. Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1981. Control of development in Chenopodium album L. by shadelight: The effect of light quantity (total fluence rate) and light quality (red:far-red). New Phytol. 88:239–248.Google Scholar
14. 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. 37:187–195.Google Scholar