Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:23:17.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimates of physiological determinants for Amaranthus retroflexus

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]

Extract

Redroot pigweed is a troublesome weed in the sorghum-growing regions of North America. In 1994 and 1995, field studies were conducted at two locations near Manhattan, KS, to determine the influence of redroot pigweed density and environmental conditions on physiological determinants of redroot pigweed growth: duration of plant growth, light interception, radiation-use efficiency, and dry matter partitioning. In addition, specific leaf area was determined. Redroot pigweed was seeded at monoculture densities of 2, 4, and 12 plants m−1 of row each year at each location. Duration of redroot pigweed growth was not influenced by plant density. Light interception was defined as a simple exponential function of leaf area index. Specific leaf area did not change over the season and averaged 135 cm2 g−1. Partitioning of redroot pigweed dry matter was not influenced by plant density or environmental conditions but did not change within vegetative and reproductive stages. Radiation-use efficiency was not influenced by redroot pigweed density; the most reliable estimate was 1.74 g dry matter MJ−1 of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation. Physiological determinants described were not affected by redroot pigweed density or environmental conditions and therefore provide a starting point for the development of a redroot pigweed growth module. The module could be coupled with available crop growth models (e.g., the sorghum growth model SORKAM) to simulate redroot pigweed–sorghum competition.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, ‘Pioneer 8500.’Integrated weed managementthresholdweed densityspecific leaf areaduration of plant growthlight interceptionradiation-use efficiencypartitioning coefficientleaf area index
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , June 1999 , pp. 291 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Anonymous. 1992. Grain Sorghum Production Handbook. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service. 32 p.Google Scholar
Board, J.E., Harville, B. G., and Kamal, M. 1994. Radiation-use efficiency in relation to row spacing for late-planted soybean. Field Crops Res. 36:13–19.Google Scholar
Charles-Edwards, D. A. 1982. Pages 13–106 in Physiological Determinants of Crop Growth. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Charles-Edwards, D. A., Doley, D., and Rimmington, G. M. 1986. Pages 16–32 in Modelling Plant Growth and Development. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google 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
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretation of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673 Google 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 Sci. 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. J., Connor, D. J., and Sadras, V. O. 1995. Radiation-use efficiency of sunflower crops: effects of specific leaf nitrogen and ontogeny. Field Crops Res. 41:65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification. A Pictorial Guide to the Common Pigweeds of the Great Plains. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service. 20 p.Google Scholar
Kiniry, J. R. 1994. Radiation-use efficiency and grain yield of maize competing with johnsongrass. Agron. J. 86:554–557.Google Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S. and Horak, S. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 46:665–672 Google Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S., Horak, S. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S., 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.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometric Methods. London: Macmillan, pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Competition: a key process in (agro-) ecology. Pages 1–7 in Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modeling Crop–Weed Interactions. Willingford, Great Britain: CAB International.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992. Systems approach to quantify crop-weed interactions and their application in weed management. Agric. Syst. 40:265–282.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1993. Empirical models for crop–weed competition. Pages 9–23 in Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modeling Crop-Weed Interactions. Willingford, Great Britain: CAB International.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weed. Weed Res. 31:97–105.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. 1993. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Willingford, Great Britain: CAB International.Google 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.Google Scholar
Lindquist, L. J., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. H., 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
Loomis, R. S. and Connor, D. J. 1992. Crop Ecology: Productivity and Management in Agricultural Systems. Cambridge, Great Britain: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M. 1992. Effect of Corn Induced Shading on Redroot Pigweed Phenology, Architecture and Reproductive Ecology. M.S. thesis. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Potter, J. R. and Jones, J. W. 1977. Leaf area partitioning as an important factor in growth. Plant Physiol. 59:10–14.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, W. D., Vanderlip, R. L., Jackson, B. S., and Arkin, G. F. 1989. SORKAM: a grain sorghum crop growth model. TAES Computer Software Documentation Series. Texas Agriculture Experiment Station, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Gary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1290 p.Google Scholar
Siriwardana, G. D. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Competition between barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 32:218–222.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. K., Weiner, J., and Warwick, S. I. 1991. Size-dependent reproductive output in agricultural weeds. Can. J. Bot. 69:442–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii Wats, S., and hybridus, A. L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1215–1234.Google Scholar