Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T09:29:57.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Venice Mallow (Hibiscus trionum) Interference in Sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis C. Odero ,
Abdel O. Mesbah ,
Stephen D. Miller  and
Andrew R. Kniss
Dennis C. Odero*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Abdel O. Mesbah
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Andrew R. Kniss
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: odero@uwyo.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Powell, WY, in 2006 and 2007 to determine the influence of season-long interference of various Venice mallow densities and duration of interference on sugarbeet. Sucrose concentration was not affected by Venice mallow interference. The effect of Venice mallow density on sugarbeet root and sucrose yield loss was described by the rectangular hyperbola model. Root and sucrose yield loss increased as Venice mallow density increased. The estimated asymptote, A (percent yield loss as density approaches infinity) was 61% for both root and sucrose yield loss, and the estimated parameter, I (percent yield loss per unit weed density as density approaches zero) was 6% for both root and sucrose yield loss. Sugarbeet root yield decreased as the duration of Venice mallow interference increased. The critical timing of weed removal to avoid 5 and 10% root yield loss was 30 and 43 d after sugarbeet emergence, respectively. Results show that Venice mallow is competitive with sugarbeet implying that it should be managed appropriately to reduce negative effects on yield and prevent seed bank replenishment and re-infestation in subsequent years.

Keywords

Venice mallow, Hibiscus trionum L. HIBTRsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.Competitioncritical periodlength of competitiontiming of removalweed densitypercent sucrose
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 581 - 585
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

Bukun, B. 2004. The critical period for weed control in cotton in Turkey. Weed Sci 44:404–412.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci 25:151–158.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Bio 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Eaton, B. J., Feltner, K. C., and Russ, O. G. 1973. Venice mallow competition in soybeans. Weed Sci 21:89–94.Google Scholar
Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, K. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci 24:224–228.Google Scholar
Firehun, Y. and Tamado, T. 2006. Weed flora in the Rift Valley sugarcane plantations of Ethiopia as influenced by soil types and agronomic practices. Weed Bio. Mgt 6:139–150.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. New York: Academic. 892.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol 8:754–759.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1995. Wild mustard (Brassica kaber) and wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.). Weed Technol 9:49–52.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J. 1973. The growth and development of the storage root of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Bio 75:427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52:802–807.Google Scholar
Park, S. E., Benjamin, L. R., and Watkinson, A. R. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Ann. Bot 92:741–748.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statist. Software. 12 (5):Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2007. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Statistics. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 29:128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 31:5–8.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 30:514–519.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Lauridson, T. C. 1985. Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 33:518–520.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. Pages 485–519. in Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. and Wilcockson, S. J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Bio 83:331–335.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Coffin, M. J., and Landholt, L. M. 2003. Weeds of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Dept. Agric. in cooperation with Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 605.Google Scholar
Teo-Sherrell, C. P. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Keaton, M. E. 1996. Fates of weed seeds in soil: a seeded core method of study. J. Appl. Ecol 33:1107–1113.Google Scholar
Walker, S. R., Taylor, I. N., Osten, V. A., Hoque, Z., and Farquharson, R. J. 2005. A survey of management and economic impact of weeds in dryland cotton cropping systems of subtropical Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 45:79–91.Google Scholar
Warner, R. M. and Erwin, J. E. 2001. Variation in floral induction requirements of Hibiscus sp. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 126:262–268.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci 17:464–467.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Pearson, C. H., and Ristau, R. 1990. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) in corn (Zea mays) and onions (Allium cepa). Weed Technol 4:500–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, P., Pearson, C. H., Ristau, R., and Schweissing, F. 1996. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) seed production and persistence in soil in Colorado. Weed Technol 10:22–28.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Blackwell. 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar