Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:59:53.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) density and nitrogen rate on radish (Raphanus sativus) yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jose P. Morales-Payan
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to determine the effects of nitrogen (N) supply and purple nutsedge population densities on the yield of radish. In the greenhouse studies, additive series with purple nutsedge densities of 0, 50, 100, 200 or 350 plants m−2 were established. Nitrogen rates of 0, 110, 220, or 330 kg ha−1 were provided to the potting medium. A significant density by N interaction was found for radish fresh weight. Within a given nutsedge density, radish yield decreased as N rate increased. In field studies, additive series of 0, 50, 100, 150, or 200 nutsedge plants m−2 were established the same day radish was sown. Nitrogen rates were 100 or 200 kg ha−1. Marketable radish yield losses and nutsedge shoot dry weight and height were determined 30 d after seeding the crop. Nutsedge densities and N rates interactively influenced radish root yield. Radish yield loss reached 100% at nutsedge densities of 75 and 125 plants m−2 at 200 and 100 kg N ha−1, respectively. Purple nutsedge produced larger shoot biomass as N increased from 100 to 200 kg ha−1. Results of both greenhouse and field studies showed that as N increased, the negative effect of the weed on the crop was enhanced.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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.)

Footnotes

Current address: c/o Lynx Air DR-SD, P.O. Box 407052, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33340

References

Literature Cited

Bendixen, L. E. and Nandihalli, U. B. 1987. Worldwide distribution of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) . Weed Technol. 1: 6165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34: 2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43: 491497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, p. 8.Google Scholar
Maynard, D., Hochmuth, G., Vavrina, C., Stall, W., Kucharek, T., and Johnson, E. 1995. Radish production in Florida. Pages 220222 in Maynard, D. and Hochmuth, G., eds. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1996a. Effect of different purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) population densities on bell pepper yield at varying nitrogen levels. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36: 17.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1996b. Nitrogen effects on the competitive interactions of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) and cilantro. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36: 69.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Dusky, J. A., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Influence of nitrogen on the interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and Cyperus esculentus) with tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) . HortScience 32: 431.Google Scholar
Okafor, L. I. and DeDatta, S. K. 1976. Competition between upland rice and purple nutsedge for nitrogen, moisture and light. Weed Sci. 24: 4346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 190198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1997a. Effect of phosphorus fertility on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37: 54.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., and Shilling, D. G. 1997b. Influence of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) densities on lettuce yields under different phosphorus fertility regimes. HortScience 32: 431.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W, Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994a. Effects of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus) . Weed Sci. 42: 556560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Shilling, D. G., Dusky, J. A., and Brecke, B. J. 1994b. Influence of phosphorus fertility on intra- and interspecific interference between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus) . Weed Sci. 42: 574578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stall, W. M., Dusky, J. A., and Gilreath, J. P. 1996. Estimated effectiveness of recommended herbicides on selected common weeds in Florida vegetables. Pages 343346 in Colvin, D. er al., eds. 1996 Florida Weed Control Guide. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, SP53.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant Soil 135: 287292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Vegetable Summary. Florida Agricultural Statistics. Orlando, FL: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 70 p.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1987. Description of purple nutsedge and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) . Weed Technol. 1: 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar