Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:00:29.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Light Requirements of Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and Light Interception by Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. E. Keeley
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. of Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
R. J. Thullen
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. of Agric., Shafter, CA 93263

Abstract

The influence of artificial shading (0, 30, 47, 70, 80, and 94% shade) on growth of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) and the time required for developing canopies of several crops to intercept a given amount of light were investigated in field studies to estimate the potential of crops to compete with yellow nutsedge for light. Average number of shoots and tubers and total dry matter production of yellow nutsedge increased in direct proportion to increased amounts of light (correlation coefficient (r ≥.98). Compared to no shade, flower production was substantially reduced by 30 and 47% shade and was essentially absent under more dense treatments. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) measured at weekly intervals indicated that light interception occurred first within the drill row of crops, then on shoulders of planting beds, and finally in furrows. The most rapidly developing canopies studied [corn (Zea mays L.), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.), and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.)] intercepted 90% or greater PAR, including illumination in furrows, within 8 to 9 weeks after planting. About 12, 12, and 16 weeks were required for 80% interception for cowpeas [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.], milo [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.], and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), respectively. Fall-planted barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) intercepted about 90% PAR by March 12. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) intercepted about 90% PAR within 2 to 3 weeks after individual cuttings. Although onions (Allium cepa L.) planted in December intercepted 95% of the PAR in each of the two drill rows per bed about 26 weeks after planting, only 20 to 30% interception occurred in furrows and row middles.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. Andries, J. A., Douglas, A. G., and Cole, A. W. 1974. Herbicide, leaf type, and row spacing response in cotton. Weed Sci. 22: 496499.Google Scholar
2. Bell, R. S., Lachman, W. H., Rahn, E. M., and Sweet, R. D. 1962. Life history studies as related to weed control in the Northeast. 1. Northern nutgrass. R. I. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 364. 33 p.Google Scholar
3. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338344.Google Scholar
4. Botha, P. J. 1971. Red nutgrass and its control. Farming S. Afr. 47:5355.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, Gale A. 1974. Weeds plague cotton growers from the Carolinas to California. Weeds Today 5:67.Google Scholar
6. Garner, W. W. 1962. Effects of light on plants. A literature review, 1950. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Crops Res. Div., ARS 34–34. 58 p.Google Scholar
7. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1975. Influence of yellow nutsedge competition on furrow-irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 23:171175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Lewis, W. M. 1972. Today's weed – nutsedges. Weeds Today. 3: 19.Google Scholar
9. Loustalot, A. J., Muzik, T. J., and Cruzado, H. J. 1954. Studies on nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus L.) and its control. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Office Exp. Stn., Bull. No. 52. 30 p.Google Scholar
10. Magalhaes, A. C. 1967. Observations on the influence of light on the growth of purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. (in Spanish, English summary). Bragantia 26:131142.Google Scholar
11. William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23:317323.Google Scholar