Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:51:07.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitiveness of erect, semierect, and prostrate cowpea genotypes with sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and purslane (Portulaca oleracea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Guangyao Wang ,
Jeff D. Ehlers ,
Eddie J. Ogbuchiekwe ,
Shengping Yang  and
Milton E. McGiffen Jr.
Guangyao Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Jeff D. Ehlers
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Eddie J. Ogbuchiekwe
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Shengping Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth habits of the crop and competing weed species are important determinants of crop–weed competition. Three cowpea genotypes with similar vegetative vigor but different growth habit were assessed for their relative competitiveness with two weed species. ‘Iron-Clay’ (IC) grows erect, ‘IT89KD-288’ (288) is semierect, and ‘UCR 779’ (779) is prostrate. Common purslane, a short-statured weed, and common sunflower, a tall species, were planted within the cowpea rows. Cowpea canopy height and width, leaf area, dry weight, and light intensity above and below sunflower and cowpea canopies were measured weekly from 21 d after planting. Sunflower reduced the leaf area, amount of light received, and biomass of all cowpea genotypes. Purslane reduced the leaf area of 779 and the biomass of 288 and 779, but the biomass and leaf area of IC were not affected. The presence of sunflower increased the height of IC and 288, but the presence of purslane decreased the canopy height of 779. IC reduced sunflower biomass, whereas IC and 779 reduced purslane biomass. IC and 288 reduced sunflower leaf area, whereas IC and 779 reduced purslane leaf area. The growth analysis of biomass, leaf area, and canopy height of cowpeas and weeds showed similar results. The experiments indicate that cowpea genotypes differ in their ability to compete with purslane and sunflower. IC was the most competitive genotype, suggesting that an erect growth habit may be more effective in suppressing weeds than semierect or prostrate growth habits.

Keywords

Common purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLcommon sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. HELANcowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. VIGSI. ‘Iron-Clay’, ‘IT89KD-288’, ‘UCR 779’Cover cropgrowth habitinterspecific competition
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 815 - 820
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

Berkowitz, A. 1988. Competition for resources in weed-crop mixtures. Pages 89–119 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Altern. Agric 7:169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, M. B. and Forcella, F. 1993. Crop tolerance to weeds. Pages 100–131 in Callaway, M. B. and Francis, C. A. eds. Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Challiah, R. E Ramsel, Wicks, G. A., Burnside, O. C., and Johnson, V. A. 1983. Evaluation of competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars. N. Cent. Weed Control Conf. Proc 38:85–91.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res 34:29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, N. G. and Baldwin, K. R. 2000. An evaluation of summer cover crops for use in vegetable production systems in North Carolina. Hortscience 35:600–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1987. Tolerance of weed competition associated with high leaf area expansion rate in tall fescue. Crop Sci 27:146–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrity, D. P., Movillon, M., and Moody, K. 1992. Differential weed suppression ability in upland rice cultivars. Agron. J 84:586–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. E. 2001. Crop developmental responses to temperature, photoperiod, and light quality. Pages 83–87 in Hall, A. E. ed. Crop Response to Environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Hutchison, C. M. and McGiffen, M. E. 2000. Cowpea cover crop mulch for weed control in desert pepper production. Hortscience 35:196–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Mechanisms of competition for light. Pages 33–61 in Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. eds. Modeling Crop-weed Interactions. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International and the International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: relations amongst weed density, relative time of emergence, relative leaf area, and yield loss. Weed Sci 40:296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci 44:634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci 46:569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Forcella, F., Lindstrom, M. J., and Reicosky, D. C. 1997. Covariance of cropping systems and foxtail density as predictors of weed interference. Weed Sci 45:388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nangju, D. 1978. Effect of plant density, spatial arrangement, and plant type on weed control in cowpea and soybean. Pages 288–299 in Akobundu, I. O. ed. Weeds and Their Control in the Humid and Subhumid Tropics. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1985. Indicator variables. Pages 328–367 in Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. eds. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs. 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Remison, S. U. 1978. The performance of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] as influenced by weed competition. J. Agric. Sci. Camb 90:523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. G. 1971. Sunflower phenology—year, variety, and date of planting effects on day and growing degree-day summations. Crop Sci 11:635–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J 76:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, R. D., Yip, C. P., and Sieczka, J. B. 1974. Crop varieties: can they suppress weeds? N. Y. Food Life Sci. Q 7:3–5.Google Scholar
Wickes, G. A., Nordquist, P. T., Hanson, G. E., and Schmidt, J. W. 1994. Influence of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars on weed control in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci 42:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalom, F. G., Goodell, P. B., Wilson, L. T., Barnett, W. W., and Bentley, W. J. 1983. Degree-days: The Calculation and Use of Heat Units in Pest Management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Leaflet 21373.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C. A. 1977. A comparison of breeding systems and seed physiologies in three species of Portulaca L. Ecology 58:860–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar