Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-5kt27 Total loading time: 0.186 Render date: 2021-09-25T09:13:23.916Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Density and Species Proportion Effects on Interference between Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and Round-Leaved Mallow (Malva pusilla)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agric. Can. Res. Stn., Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
G. Bruce Schaalje
Affiliation:
Agric. Can. Res. Stn., Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1

Abstract

Interference between redstem filaree and round-leaved mallow was studied under controlled environmental conditions. Each species was grown in monoculture at densities of 2, 4, 8, and 12 plants per 20-cm-diam pot and in mixtures at all possible combinations of these densities. Leaf area per plant was similar for both species but round-leaved mallow grew taller and produced more shoot biomass than redstem filaree when each was grown in monoculture. Mixed culture responses varied with the proportion density of each species. A reciprocal yield model was tested and modified to account for this significant density interaction. When grown in mixture, round-leaved mallow usually gained in leaf area and shoot biomass at the expense of redstem filaree indicating that it was the superior competitor. Calculated competition ratios indicate that round-leaved mallow was about twice as competitive as redstem filaree under the growing conditions of this study.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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.)

References

1. Alberta Agriculture. 1992. Pages 31152 in Crop Protection with Chemicals. Agdex 606-1, 7000-113 St., Edmonton, AB.Google Scholar
2. Alberta Agriculture. 1990. Alberta Cereals and Oilseeds Crop Protection Survey. 7000-113 St., Edmonton, AB. 55 pp.Google Scholar
3. Holt, J. S. 1991. Applications of physiological ecology to weed science. Weed Sci. 39:521528.Google Scholar
4. Makowski, R.M.D. and Morrison, I. N. 1989. The biology of Canadian weeds. 91. Malva pusilla Sm. (=M. rotundifolia L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:861879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Patterson, D. T. 1990. Effects of density and species proportion on competition between spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38:351357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Pages 93115 in Weed Ecology. Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
7. Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276284.Google Scholar
8. Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Peterson, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268275.Google Scholar
9. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. 4th ed. Vol. 1. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 943 pp.Google Scholar
10. SAS Institute, Inc. 1992. SAS Technical Report P-229, SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.07. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 620 pp.Google Scholar
11. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:111.Google Scholar
12. Wright, A. J. 1981. The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. J. Agric. Sci. 96:561567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Density and Species Proportion Effects on Interference between Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and Round-Leaved Mallow (Malva pusilla)
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Density and Species Proportion Effects on Interference between Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and Round-Leaved Mallow (Malva pusilla)
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Density and Species Proportion Effects on Interference between Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and Round-Leaved Mallow (Malva pusilla)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *