Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:39:17.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Habitat delineation of green and false-green kyllinga in turfgrass systems and interrelationship of elevation and edaphic factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Scott McElroy ,
Fred H. Yelverton ,
Michael G. Burton  and
Cavell Brownie
Fred H. Yelverton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, 4401 Williams Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Michael G. Burton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, 4401 Williams Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Cavell Brownie
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, 210D Patterson Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-8203
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge of the influence of environmental factors on weed populations is important in developing sustainable turfgrass management practices. Studies were conducted to evaluate the relationship of green and false-green kyllinga population densities with elevation and edaphic factors in turfgrass systems. Studies were conducted on five different golf courses in North Carolina, three affected by green kyllinga, and two affected by false-green kyllinga. According to Spearman correlation coefficients, both green and false-green kyllinga were correlated with increasing soil volumetric water content, whereas correlation of other edaphic variables varied among sites and species. Stepwise logistic regression confirmed the correlation of volumetric water with green kyllinga presence, but model components varied among sites for false-green kyllinga. Increasing green kyllinga populations correlated with increasing soil sodium; however, sodium did not reach a level believed to be detrimental to turfgrass growth. No other variables correlated with green or false-green kyllinga across all sites. We hypothesized that the lack of significant correlations was due to the overall influence of relative elevation on edaphic variables. According to principal components analysis (PCA), relative elevation had a profound impact on the measured edaphic variables at all sites. However, results of PCA at one site differed sharply from other sites. Results from that site demonstrate the potentially strong effects of management practices to alter edaphic trends normally observed with topography.

Keywords

False-green kyllinga, Kyllinga gracillima L.green kyllinga, Kyllinga brevifolia Rottb.bermudagrass, Cynodon spp.bentgrass, Agrostis sppHabitatmultiple regressionprincipal components analysisturfgrass managementweed ecology
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 5 , October 2005 , pp. 620 - 630
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

Andreasen, C., Streibig, J. C., and Haas, H. 1991. Soil properties affecting the distribution of 37 weed species in Danish fields. Weed Res 31:181–187.Google Scholar
Beard, J. B. 2002. Turfgrass management for golf courses. 2nd ed. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor. Pp. 227–271.Google Scholar
Beckett, P. H. T. and Webster, R. 1971. Soil variability: A review. Soils and Fertilizers 34:1–15.Google Scholar
Brubaker, S. C., Jones, A. J., Lewis, D. T., and Frank, K. 1993. Soil properties associated with landscape position. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 57:235–239.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Carter, R., McCarty, L. B., and Yelverton, F. H. 1997. Kyllinga, a genus of neglected weeds in the continental United States. Weed Tech 11:838–842.Google Scholar
Burton, M. G., Mortensen, D. A., Marx, D. B., and Lindquist, J. L. 2004. Factors affecting the realized niche of common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in ridge-tillage corn. Weed Sci 52:779–787.Google Scholar
Cambardella, C. A. and Karlen, D. L. 1999. Spatial analysis of soil fertility parameters. Precision Agriculture 1:5–14.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Johnson, G. A., and Sparrow, D. H. 1997. The nature and consequence of weed spatial distribution. Weed Sci 45:364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrow, R. N., Waddington, D. V., and Rieke, P. E. 2001. Turfgrass soil fertility problems: assessment and management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor. Pp. 45–339.Google Scholar
Christians, N. E. 1998. Fundamentals of turfgrass management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor. Pp. 95–142.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T. 2000. Spatial pattern analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
Day, L. D., Collins, M. E., and Washer, N. E. 1987. Landscape position and particle-size effects on soil phosphorus distributions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 51:1547–1553.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., Cambardella, C. A., and Moorman, T. B. 2000. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. I. Multivariate analysis 48:567–575.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. A. 1993. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–2214.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Cardina, J., and Mortensen, D. A. 1997. Site-specific weed management: Current and future directions. Pages 131–148 in Pierce, F. J. and Sadler, E. J. eds. The state of site-specific management for agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA–CSSA–SSSA.Google Scholar
Kravchenko, A. N. and Bullock, D. G. 2000. Correlation of corn and soybean grain yield with topography and soil properties. Agron. J 92:75–83.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. 2001. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1–98.Google Scholar
Martins, H., Domingos, T., Rego, F., Borralho, R., and Bugalho, J. 1997. Habitat evaluation using logistic regression. Pages 415–426 in Soares, A. et al. eds. geoENV I—Geostatistics for environmental applications. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B. 2001. Best golf course management practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 201–235, 518–547.Google Scholar
Medlin, C. R., Shaw, D. R., Cox, M. S., Gerard, P. D., Abshire, M. J., and Wardlaw, M. C. III. 2001. Using soil parameters to predict weed infestations in soybean. Weed Sci 49:367–374.Google Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984a. Mehlich-3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich-2 extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 15:1409–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984b. Photometric determination of humic matter in soils, a proposed method. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 15:1417–1422.Google Scholar
Miller, M. P., Singer, M. J., and Nielsen, D. R. 1988. Spatial variability of wheat yield and soil properties on complex hills. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 52:1133–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorman, T. B., Jaynes, D. B., Cambardella, C. A., Hatfield, J. L., Pfeiffer, R. L., and Morrow, A. J. 1999. Water quality in Walnut Creek watershed: herbicides in soils, subsurface drainage, and groundwater. J. Environ. Qual 28:35–45.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Dieleman, J. A., and Johnson, G. A. 1998. Weed spatial variation and weed management. Pages 293–310 in Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A. eds. Integrated weed and soil management. Ann Arbor, MI: Sleeping Bear.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear regression models. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Pp. 567–614.Google Scholar
[NCDA & CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004. Agronomics Division, 4300 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607–6465. http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi.Google Scholar
[NCDENR] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Rescources, Soil and Water Conservation Division. 2004. 1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699. http://www.enr.state.nc.us.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual 26:1271–1277.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Pp. 168–255.Google Scholar
[SAS] SAS Institute Inc. 1999a. SAS Procedures Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Pp. 273–312.Google Scholar
[SAS] SAS Institute Inc. 1999b. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Pp. 1901–2041.Google Scholar
Snaydon, R. W. 1962. Micro-distribution of Trifolium repens L. and its relation to soil factors. J. Ecology 50:133–143.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H., Levin, S. A., and Root, R. B. 1973. Niche, habitat, and ecotype. Am. Nat 107:321–338.Google Scholar