Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:37:18.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenotypic Plasticity of Spiny Amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus) and Longfruited Primrose-Willow (Ludwigia octovalvis) in Response to Rice Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bhagirath Singh Chauhan  and
Seth Bernard Abugho
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan*
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines
Seth Bernard Abugho
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: b.chauhan@irri.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth of spiny amaranth and longfruited primrose-willow was studied by growing them alone and in competition with 4 and 12 rice (cv. RC222) plants. Interference with 12 rice plants reduced the height of spiny amaranth beyond 6 wk after planting. The height of longfruited primrose-willow was significantly reduced by the crop interference starting from 4 wk after planting. Both weed species showed the ability to reduce the effects of rice interference by increasing leaf area, leaf and stem biomass in the upper half of the plant, and specific stem length. At 9 wk after planting, for example, longfruited primrose-willow had 89 and 99% leaf biomass in the upper half of the plant when grown with 4 and 12 rice plants compared with only 34% when grown alone. These values for spiny amaranth were 15, 29, and 72% when grown alone, with 4 rice plants, and 12 rice plants, respectively. Despite such plasticity, spiny amaranth's aboveground biomass at final harvest was reduced by 34 and 70% when grown with 4 and 12 rice plants, respectively, compared with its biomass without crop interference. The corresponding values for longfruited primrose-willow were 92 and 98%, respectively. These results suggest that uniform and high crop density could be an important tool to reduce competition from these weeds in direct-seeded rice.

Keywords

Spiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus L., AMASPlongfruited primrose-willow, Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) Raven, LUDOCrice, Oryza sativa LCrop interferenceleaf areabiomassdirect-seeded rice
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 411 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2009a. Germination ecology of spiny (Amaranthus spinosus) and slender amaranth (A. viridis): troublesome weeds of direct seeded rice. Weed Sci. 57:379–385.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2009b. Ludwigia hyssopifolia emergence and growth as affected by light, burial depth and water management. Crop Prot. 28:887–890.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2010a. The role of seed ecology in improving weed management strategies in the tropics. Adv. Agron. 105:221–262.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2010b. Response of rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to rice interference. Weed Sci. 58:204–208.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2011. Row spacing and weed control timing affect yield of aerobic rice. Field Crops Res. 121:226–231.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S., Pame, A. R. P., and Johnson, D. E. 2011a. Compensatory growth of ludwigia (Ludwigia hyssopifolia) in response to interference of direct-seeded rice. Weed Sci. 59:177–181.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S., Singh, V. P., Kumar, A., and Johnson, D. E. 2011b. Relations of rice seeding rates to crop and weed growth in aerobic rice. Field Crops Res. 121:105–115.Google Scholar
GenStat 8.0. 2005. GenStat Release 8 Reference Manual. Oxford, U.K. VSN International. 343 p.Google Scholar
Håkansson, S. 2003. Weeds and weed management on arable land—an ecological approach. Wallingford, UK CABI Publishing International. 288 p.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL The University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Moody, K. 1989. Weeds Reported in Rice in South and Southeast Asia. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines International Rice Research Institute. 442 p.Google Scholar
Ni, H. W., Moody, K., and Robles, R. P. 2004. Analysis of competition between wet-seeded rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) using a response-surface model. Weed Sci. 52:142–146.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Newman, J. C., and Hall, L. M. 2001. Barley seeding rate influences the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci. 49:746–754.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. M., Kristensen, L., Weiner, J., and Griepentrog, H. W. 2005. Increased density and spatial uniformity increases weed suppression by spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Res. 45:316–321.Google Scholar
Pancho, J. V. 1964. Seed sizes and production capacities in common weed species of the rice fields of the Philippines. Philipp. Agric. 48:307–316.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. and Velasco, L. 2005. Trends in crop establishment methods in Asia and research issues. Pages 178–181 in Rice Is Life: Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century. Los Baños, Philippines International Rice Research Institute and Tsukuba, Japan: Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1979. The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata). Weed Sci. 27:549–553.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:329–333.Google Scholar