Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: I. Crop growth and yield

  • Robert F. Norris, Clyde L. Elmore (a1), Marcel Rejmánek (a2) and William C. Akey (a3)

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine how the spatial arrangement of weed populations influences interspecific competition. We studied the influence of regular, random, and clumped distributions of barnyardgrass on growth and yield of direct-seeded tomato planted at different densities. Increasing aggregation increased intraspecific competition in barnyardgrass. At the same time, interspecific competition experienced by tomato from barnyardgrass decreased. Differences in the amount of shading of the tomato canopy by barnyardgrass contributed to yield loss differences for the various spatial arrangements. Clumped barnyardgrass caused significantly less average shading than barnyardgrass in regular or random arrangements. At a typical planting density of 10 tomato plants m−1 of row, yield losses ranged from 10 to 35% (1993) or 8 to 50% (1994) when competing with a clumped arrangement of barnyardgrass. At the same tomato density, yields were reduced from 20 to 50% (1993) or 11 to 75% (1994) for the regular and random arrangements for the same barnyardgrass densities. Predicted single-season economic threshold densities for barnyardgrass at a typical tomato planting density of 10 plants m−1 would be one barnyardgrass plant per 25, 19, or 15 m of crop row, respectively, for regular, random, and clumped spatial distributions.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Corresponding author. Weed Science Program, Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; rfnorris@ucdavis.edu

References

Hide All
Auld, B. A. and Tisdell, C. A. 1988. Influence of spatial distribution of weeds on crop yield loss. Plant Prot. Quart. 3:81.
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228235.
Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Effects of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) on growth, yield, and nutrient status of transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 36:775778.
Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1990. The effect of weed distribution on predictions of yield loss. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:735742.
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in notill soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:258268.
Cousens, R. 1985a. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239252.
Cousens, R. 1985b. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513521.
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1991. Spatial pattern analysis of weed seeds in the cultivated soil seed bank. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:721730.
Garrett, K. A. 1993. The spatial pattern and area of influence of a plant competitor: a model of their impact on plant populations with implications for competition experiments. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 74:244.
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 3240.
Hughes, G. 1988. Spatial heterogeneity in crop loss assessment models. Phytopath. 78:883884.
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 26, 42, and 60–61.
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1995. A simulation of herbicide use based on weed spatial distribution. Weed Res. 35:197205.
Lindquist, J. L., Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Wyse-Pester, D. Y. 1998. Economic importance of managing spatially heterogenous weed populations. Weed Technol. 12:713.
Marshall, E.J.P. 1988. Field scale estimates of grass weed populations in arable land. Weed Res. 28:191198.
Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Young, L. J. 1995. Weed distribution in agricultural fields. Pages 113124 In Robert, P. and Rust, R. H., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison: Agronomy Society of America.
Norris, R. F., Elmore, C. L., Rejmánek, M., and Akey, W. C. 2001. Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: II. Barnyardgrass growth and seed production. Weed Sci. 49:6976.
Papadopoulos, A. P. and Pararajasingham, S. 1997. The influence of plant spacing on light interception and use in greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.): A Review. Sci. Horti. 69:129.
Rejmánek, M., Bossard, C. C., Robinson, G. R., and Brown, A. M. 1992. The role of plant aggregation in interspecific competition. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 73:319.
Rejmánek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmánkova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analyses. Weed Sci. 37:276289.
Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Netherlands J. Agricul. Sci. 31:111.
Stauber, L. G., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Density and spatial competition of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 39:163168.
Suehiro, K. and Ogawa, H. 1980. Competition between two annual herbs, Atriplex gmelini C.A. Mey. and Chenopodium album L., in mixed cultures irrigated with sea water of various concentrations. Oecologia 45:167177.
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Protect. 9:337342.
[UC IPM] University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. 1990. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publ. 3274. 104 p.
Van Gessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Garrett, K. A., and Westra, P. 1995. Influence of weed density and distribution on corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Sci. 43:215218.
Van Groenendael, J. M. 1988. Patchy distribution of weeds and some implications for modeling population dynamics: a short literature review. Weed Res. 8:437441.
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992a. Value of information about weed distribution for improving postemergence control decisions. Crop Protect. 11:547554.
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., Gold, H. J., and Coble, H. D. 1992b. Modeling weed distribution for improved postemergence control decisions. Weed Sci. 40:456553.
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 303 p.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed