Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:50:48.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Florida Beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) on Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ellis W. Hauser ,
Gale A. Buchanan ,
Robert L. Nichols  and
Richard M. Patterson
Ellis W. Hauser
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Tifton, GA 31793
Gale A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Alabama Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
Robert L. Nichols
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Tifton, GA
Richard M. Patterson
Affiliation:
Auburn Univ.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC] reduced peanut (Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner′) yields more than sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.) when the crop and weeds were allowed to compete for the full season. Regression analyses within years indicated peanut yield reductions of 15.8 to 30.2 kg/ha for each Florida beggarweed per 10 m2 vs. 6.1 to 22.3 kg/ha for each sicklepod per 10 m2. Each kilogram fresh weight per hectare of Florida beggarweed reduced peanut yields 0.15 to 0.74 kg/ha. Reductions in peanut yields ranged from 0.08 to 0.23 kg/ha for each kilogram fresh weight per hectare of sicklepod. Peanut yield reductions correlated more closely with the weights of the weeds than with their populations.

Keywords

Crop-weed complexthresholdweed-competitioncrop-weed competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , November 1982 , pp. 602 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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

Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G. A., Hauser, E. W., Ethredge, W. J., and Cecil, S. R. 1976. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. II. Effects of cultivation, weeds, and SADH. Weed Sci. 24:29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology (in press). Pierce Printing Co., Ahoskie, NC.Google Scholar
3. Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr., and Bunn, T. M. Interference and management of broadleaf signalgrass in peanuts. 1980. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:25.Google Scholar
4. Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities: a Textbook of Synecology. Harper and Dunn, New York. 203 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concepts and extensions of the DeWit analysis to examine effects. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:739–747.Google Scholar
6. Hall, R. L. 1978. The analysis and significance of competitive and non-competitive interference between species. Pages 163–174 in Wilson, J. R., ed. Plant Relations in Pastures. Commonwealth Sci. and Ind. Res. Organ., East Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
7. Harper, J. L. 1961. Approaches to the study of plant competition. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 15:1–39.Google Scholar
8. Hauser, E. W. and Buchanan, G. A. 1981. Influence of row spacing, seeding rates, and herbicide systems on the competitiveness and yield of peanuts. Peanut Sci. 8:74–81.Google Scholar
9. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., Currey, W. L., Ethredge, W. J., Gorbet, D. W., Slaughter, J. W., and Swann, C. W. 1977. Response of Florunner peanuts to planting dates, herbicide sequences and a systemic insecticide. Weed Sci. 25:203–211.Google Scholar
10. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance or weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.Google Scholar
11. Hauser, E. W., Santelmann, P. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Rud, O. E. 1972. Controlling weeds in peanuts. Pages 327–360 in Wilson, C. T., ed. Peanuts: Culture and Uses. Stone Printing Company, Roanoke, VA.Google Scholar
12. Hill, L. V. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual weeds on Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:1–2.Google Scholar
13. Petersen, R. G. 1977. Use and misuse of multiple comparison procedures. Agron. J. 69:205–208.Google Scholar
14. York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:43–47.Google Scholar