Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:50:37.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time of Removal of Crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides) on Peanut Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rodney L. Farris ,
Cody J. Gray ,
Don S. Murray  and
Laval M. Verhalen
Rodney L. Farris
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Cody J. Gray
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Laval M. Verhalen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dmurray@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in southwestern Oklahoma near Colony in 2000 and near Ft. Cobb in 2001 to quantify the effect of time of removal of a natural population of crownbeard on peanut yield. Weed densities and dry weed weights were measured at eight weed-removal times, and in-shell peanut yields were determined at harvest. Crownbeard was removed at 0 (the weed-free check), 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 wk (full season) after crop emergence (WAE). Weed density was a poor predictor for dry weed weight and peanut yield; however, dry weed weight and time of removal were good predictors for peanut yield. Weed growth was minimal up to 4 WAE and increased linearly after that time. For each week of weed growth, a 0.52 kg/plot increase in dry weed weight was measured. Peanut yield decreased linearly because of crownbeard competition. For each kilogram per plot increase in dry weed weight, a 129 kg/ha or 5.1% peanut yield reduction took place. For each week of weed interference, a 75 kg/ha or 2.8% peanut yield reduction occurred. Crownbeard removal by or before 4 WAE will minimize losses in peanut yield because of interference.

Keywords

Crownbeard, Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. f. ex Gray # VEEENpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Competitioncompetitive durationdry weed weightinterferenceweed densityyieldANOVA, analyses of varianceWAE, weeks after crop emergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 380 - 384
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.)

Footnotes

1 Published with the approval of the Director, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma State University.
Current address: Research Associate I, Plant and Soil Sciences Department, P.O. Box 9555, Mississippi State, MS 39762.

References

Literature Cited

Coleman, J. R. 1966. A taxonomic revision of section Ximenesia of the genus Verbesina L. (Compositae). Am. Midl. Nat. 76:475–481.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Sestak, D. C. 1998. Control of golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides) in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides. Peanut Sci. 25:39–43.Google Scholar
Hackett, N. M., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1987a. Interference of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) with peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35:780–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackett, N. M., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1987b. Interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) on Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 14:39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance or weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, L. V. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual weeds on Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, C. Asakawa and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1999. Allelopathic potential of Verbesina encelioides root leachate in soil. Can. J. Bot. 77:1419–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeler, R. F., Baker, D. C., and Panter, K. E. 1992. Concentration of galegine in Verbesina encelioides and Galega oficinalis and the toxic and pathologic effects induced by the plants. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 11:75–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Keeler, R. F., Johnson, A. E., Stuart, L. D., and Evans, J. O. 1986. Toxicosis from and possible adaptation to Galega officinalis in sheep and the relationship to Verbesina encelioides toxicosis. Vet. Human Toxicol. 28:309–315.Google Scholar
Lopez, T. A., Campero, C. M., Chayer, R., Cosentino, B., and Caracino, M. 1996. Experimental toxicity of Verbesina encelioides in sheep and isolation of galegine. Vet. Human Toxicol. 38:417–419.Google ScholarPubMed
McCoy, D. 1987. Oklahoma Wildflowers. Oklahoma City, OK: Ebsco Graphics. P. 107.Google Scholar
[OALS] Office of Arid Lands Studies. 2001. Low Water Use and Drought Tolerant Plants: Annuals. Desert Research Unit: Web page: http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/oals/dru/LWUannuals.html. Accessed: November 15, 2001.Google Scholar
[OASS] Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics, 2001. Oklahoma City, OK: USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. P. 13.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1986. Weed competition and economic thresholds. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 71–97.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Pp. 1118–1120.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2001. Software version 8e. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Strahan, R. E., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., and Miller, D. K. 2000. Interference between Rottboellia cochinchinensis and Zea mays . Weed Sci. 48:205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey-Southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. Pp. 11–20.Google Scholar