Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T08:50:30.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stevan Z. Knezevic ,
Michael J. Horak  and
Richard L. Vanderlip
Michael J. Horak
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Richard L. Vanderlip
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Redroot pigweed is a common weed in sorghum fields throughout the southcentral United States including Kansas. In 1994 and 1995, field studies were conducted at two sites near Manhattan, KS, to determine the influence of redroot pigweed densities and times of emergence on sorghum yield and yield components. Redroot pigweed was sown at densities of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 12 plants meter−1 of row within a 25-cm band over the sorghum row at planting and at the three- to four-leaf stage of sorghum. A rectangular hyperbola was used to describe the relationship between crop yield loss and weed density. Because of the instability of both coefficients I (percentage yield loss at low weed density) and A (percentage yield loss at high weed density), our results do not support the use of a model based exclusively on weed number to estimate sorghum yield loss across all locations within a region. A quadratic polynomial equation that accounts for the time of weed emergence relative to the crop growth stage is suggested as an alternative method to estimate sorghum yield loss. At the densities studied, the time of pigweed emergence relative to the sorghum leaf stage was critical for the outcome of sorghum-pigweed competition. Significant sorghum yield losses occurred only when pigweed emerged before the 5.5-leaf stage of sorghum. An examination of yield components suggested that the yield loss was a result of a reduction in number of seeds per head.

Keywords

SorghumSorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘Pioneer 8500’; redroot pigweedAmaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREIntegrated weed managementthresholdweed densityAMARE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , August 1997 , pp. 502 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Corresponding address: Manitoba Agriculture Soils and Crops Branch, Carman, Manitoba, Canada R0G 0J0

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1992a. Grain Sorghum Production Handbook. Manhattan, KS: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University. 50 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1992b. Kansas Agricultural Chemical Usage. 1991 Sorghum and Wheat Summary. Manhattan, KS: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University. 24 p.Google Scholar
Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1967. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds 13: 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43: 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciba-Geigy. 1992. Best Management Practices to Reduce Run Off of Pesticides into Surface Water: A Review and Analysis of Supporting Research. Technical Report: 9-92. Greensboro, NC: Ciba-Geigy Corporation Agricultural Group. 57 p.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985a. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105: 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985b. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretation of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28: 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5: 664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R., Brian, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35: 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 43: 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. 709 p.Google Scholar
Hanf, M. 1983. The arable weeds of Europe with their seedlings and seeds. Aktiengesellshaft, Ludwigshafen: BASF Corp. 494 p.Google Scholar
Heinrich, G. M., Francis, C. A., and Eastin, J. D. 1983. Stability of grain sorghum yield components across diverse environments. Crop Sci. 23: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karchi, Z. and Rudich, Y. 1966. Effects of row width and seedling spacing on yield and its components in grain sorghum grown under dry land conditions. Agron. J. 58: 602–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z. and Horak, M. J. 1997. Influence of emergence time and density on plant architecture, dry matter, and seed production of redroot pigweed grown in monoculture or with sorghum. Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Res. 42: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Comparison of empirical models depicting density of Amaranthus retroflexus L. and relative leaf area as predictors of yield loss in maize (Zea mays L.). Weed Res. 35: 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28: 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37: 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Kropff, M. J. 1996. Application of an ecophysiological model for irrigated rice (Oryza sativa)—Echinochloa competition. Weed Sci. 44: 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44: 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutman, P.J.W., Risiott, R., and Ostermann, H. P. 1996. Investigations into alternative methods to predict the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields. Weed Sci. 44: 290–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R. 1970. A note on the use and misuse of regression models in ecology. J. Ecol. 59: 215–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., Ashley O'Sullivan, P., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33: 498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1290 p.Google Scholar
Saeed, M. and Francis, C. A. 1984. Association of weather variability with genotype × environment interactions in grain sorghum. Crop Sci. 24: 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, V. M. 1973. Economic thresholds. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 18: 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 648–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderlip, R. L. 1993. How a sorghum plant develops. Revised version. Manhattan, KS: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University. 20 p.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 38: 338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5: 674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Wats. and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 1215–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar