Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:13:41.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of emergence time on growth and fecundity of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and slender amaranth (Amaranthus viridis): emerging problem weeds in Australian summer crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2021

Asad M. Khan Open the ORCID record for Asad M. Khan [Opens in a new window] ,
Ahmadreza Mobli Open the ORCID record for Ahmadreza Mobli [Opens in a new window] ,
Jeff A. Werth  and
Bhagirath S. Chauhan Open the ORCID record for Bhagirath S. Chauhan [Opens in a new window]
Asad M. Khan*
Affiliation:
PhD Student, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
Ahmadreza Mobli
Affiliation:
Former PhD Student, Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran; Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
Jeff A. Werth
Affiliation:
Senior Research Scientist, Leslie Research Centre, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Toowoomba, Australia
Bhagirath S. Chauhan
Affiliation:
Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) and School of Agriculture and Food Sciences (SAFS), University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Asad M. Khan, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD4343, Australia. (Email: asad.khan@uq.net.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and slender amaranth (Amaranthus viridis L.) are considered emerging problematic weeds in summer crops in Australia. An outdoor pot experiment was conducted to examine the effects of planting time on two populations of A. retroflexus and A. viridis at the research farm of the University of Queensland, Australia. Both species were planted every month from October to January (2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019), and their growth and seed production were recorded. Although both weeds matured at a similar number of growing degree days (GDD), they required a different number of days to complete their life cycles depending on planting date. The growth period was reduced and flowering occurred sooner as both species experienced cooler temperatures and shorter daylight hours. Both species exhibited increased height, biomass, and seed production for the October-sown plants compared with other planting times, and these parameters were reduced by delaying the planting time. The shoot and root biomass of A. retroflexus and A. viridis (averaged over both populations) was reduced by more than 70% and 65%, respectively, when planted in January, in comparison to planting in October. When planted in October, A. retroflexus and A. viridis produced 11,350 and 5,780 seeds plant−1, but these were reduced to 770 and 365 seeds plant−1 for the January planting date, respectively. Although the growth and fecundity of these species were dependent on planting time, these weeds could emerge throughout the late spring to summer growing season (October to March) in southeast Australia and could produce a significant number of seeds. The results showed that when these species emerged in the late spring (October), they grew vigorously and produced more biomass in comparison with the other planting dates. Therefore, any early weed management practice for these species could be beneficial for minimizing the subsequent cost and energy inputs toward their control.

Keywords

Phenologyphotoperiodshort-day plantweed biomassweed seed production
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , May 2021 , pp. 333 - 340
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

Associate Editor: Ramon G. Leon, North Carolina State University

References

Bajwa, AA, Chauhan, BS, Adkins, SW (2018) Germination ecology of two Australian biotypes of ragweed parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) relates to their invasiveness. Weed Sci 66:62–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbasso, MF, Orzari, I, Silva, BVIR, Braga, IMRF, Alves, PLDCA (2018) Intra-and inter-specific interference between slender amaranth and red pepper. Afr J Agric Res 13:2460–2470 Google Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, AC, Swanton, CJ (1997) Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:276–282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, SJPD, Christoffoleti, PJ (2008) Competition of Amaranthus species with dry bean plants. Sci Agric 65:239–245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costea, M, Weaver, SE, Tardif, FJ (2004) The biology of Canadian weeds. 130. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Watson and A. hybridus L. Can J Plant Sci 84:631–668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, W, Hunt, T, Swanton, CJ (1998) Influence of temperature, photoperiod, and irradiance on the phenological development of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Sci 46:555–560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estorninos, LE, Gealy, DR, Gbur, EE, Talbert, RE, McClelland, MR (2005) Rice and red rice interference. II. Rice response to population densities of three red rice (Oryza sativa) ecotypes. Weed Sci 53:683–689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, JA., Bradley, KW, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Johnson, WG, Norsworthy, JK, Davis, VM, Loux, MM (2017) Influence of tillage method on management of Amaranthus species in soybean. Weed Technol 31:10–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, CM, Holt, JS (1995) Using phenology prediction in weed management: a review. Weed Res 35:461–470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, RF (1989) Simulation of maize phenology. J Agron 81:451–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, JL, Boote, KJ, Kimball, BA, Ziska, LH, Izaurralde, RC, Ort, D, Thomson, AM, Wolfe, D (2011) Climate impacts on agriculture: implications for crop production. J Agron 103:351–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, JL, Prueger, JH (2015) Temperature extremes: effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim Extremes 10:4–10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2020) International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. http://weedscience.org. Accessed: March 11, 2020Google Scholar
Hegazy, AK, Fahmy, GM, Ali, MI, Gomaa, NH (2005) Growth and phenology of eight common weed species. J Arid Environ 61:171–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heneghan, JM, Johnson, WG (2017) The growth and development of five waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) populations in a common garden. Weed Sci 65:247–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, T (1991). Temperature and water stress effects on phenology. Pages 7–13 in Hodges, T, ed. Predicting Crop Phenology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Google Scholar
Holm, L, Doll, J, Holm, E, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP (1997) World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: Wiley. Pp 51–65 Google Scholar
Huang, JZ, Shrestha, A, Tollenaar, M, Deen, W, Rahimian, H, Swanton, CJ (2000) Effects of photoperiod on the phenological development of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Can J Plant Sci 80:929–938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, JZ, Shrestha, A, Tollenaar, M, Deen, W, Rajcan, I, Rahimian, H, Swanton, CJ (2001) Effect of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.). Field Crops Res 70:75–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, S, Khaliq, A, Matloob, A, Fahad, S, Tanveer, A (2015). Interference and economic threshold level of little seed canary grass in wheat under different sowing times. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:441–449 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J, Kokko, H (2002) Cohort effects and population dynamics. Ecol Lett 5:338–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manalil, S, Werth, J, Jackson, R, Chauhan, BS, Preston, C (2017) An assessment of weed flora 14 years after the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant cotton in Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 68:773–780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, SM, Murphy, SD, Tollenaar, M, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1995) Light limitation of reproduction and variation in the allometric relationship between reproductive and vegetative biomass in Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed). J Appl Ecol 32:157–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mobli, A, Manalil, S, Khan, AM, Jha, P, Chauhan, BS (2020) Effect of emergence time on growth and fecundity of Rapistrum rugosum and Brassica tournefortii in the northern region of Australia. Sci Rep 10:15979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mobli, A, Matloob, A, Chauhan, BS (2019a) The response of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible biotypes of annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) to mungbean density. Weed Sci 67:642–648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mobli, A, Mijani, S, Ghanbari, A, Rastgoo, M (2019b) Seed germination and emergence of two flax-leaf alyssum (Alyssum linifolium Steph. ex. Willd.) populations in response to environmental factors. Crop Pasture Sci 70:807–813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2016) Integrating herbicide programs with harvest weed seed control and other fall management practices for the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 64:540–550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osten, VA, Walker, SR, Storrie, A, Widderick, M, Moylan, P, Robinson, GR, Galea, K (2007) Survey of weed flora and management relative to cropping practices in the north-eastern grain region of Australia. Aust J Exp Agric 47:57–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DT (1992) Temperature and canopy development of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 6:68–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajagopalan, AV, Devi, MT, Raghavendra, AS (1993) Patterns of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity and cytosolic pH during light activation and dark deactivation in C3 and C4 plants. Photosynth Res 38:51–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Steckel, LE, Walsh, MJ (2016) Tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seed production and retention at soybean maturity. Weed Technol 30:284–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Devkota, P, Johnson, WG, Smeda, RJ, Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK (2018) Phenology of five Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations grown in northern Indiana and Arkansas. Weed Sci 66:457–469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uva, RH, Neal, JC, DiTomaso, JM, eds (1997) Weeds of the Northeast. 1st ed. New York: Cornell University Press. 397 pGoogle Scholar
Walker, SR, Taylor, IN, Milne, G, Osten, VA, Hoque, Z, Farquharson, RJ (2005) A survey of management and economic impact of weeds in dryland cotton cropping systems of subtropical Australia. Aust J Exp Agric 45:79–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waselkov, KE, Olsen, KM (2014) Population genetics and origin of the native North American agricultural weed waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Am J Bot 101:1726–1736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willenborg, CJ, May, WE, Gulden, RH, Lafond, G, Shirtliffe, SJ (2005) Influence of wild oat (Avena fatua) relative time of emergence and density on cultivated oat yield, wild oat seed production, and wild oat contamination. Weed Sci 53:342–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, C, Owen, MD (2014) When is the best time to emerge: reproductive phenology and success of natural common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) cohorts in the Midwest United States? Weed Sci 62:107–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar