Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T11:03:59.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Interference in Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark J. Vangessel  and
Karen A. Renner
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In greenhouse replacement series experiments, ‘Atlantic’ and ‘Russet Burbank’ potatoes and barnyardgrass were more competitive than redroot pigweed as measured by relative competitive ability. In additive design field studies, four redroot pigweed or barnyardgrass per meter of row did not reduce Atlantic tuber yield when planted between the row following hilling (6 to 7 weeks after planting). However, as few as one barnyardgrass or redroot pigweed per meter of row reduced marketable tuber yield 19 to 33% when seeded in the row at the time of potato planting. Redroot pigweed reduced tuber yield more than barnyardgrass did in 1 yr of research. The correlation coefficients were similar for both weed density and weed biomass regressed on tuber yield. Aboveground potato biomass was not consistent in predicting total tuber yield. Furthermore, variability in aboveground potato biomass was not due to increasing weed weight or density. Neither specific gravity nor tuber quality was altered by the presence of any density of either weed species.

Keywords

Potato, Solanum tuberosum L.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGCompetitioninterferencetuber qualitySolanum tuberosumAmaranthus retroflexusEchinochloa crus-galliAMAREECHCG
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 4-5 , September 1990 , pp. 338 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, M. J. 1988. Influence of cultivar competitiveness of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 36:616–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Coble, H. D. 1985. Multi-species number threshold for soybeans. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 59.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1970. Time and duration of weed infestation in relation to weed-crop competition. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 23:13–25.Google Scholar
5. Dawson, J. H. 1985. The concept of period threshold. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 60.Google Scholar
6. Egly, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1979. Cultivation influences on weed seedling emergence. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 82.Google Scholar
7. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 222 pp.Google Scholar
8. Kroh, G. C. and Stephenson, S. N. 1980. Effects of diversity and pattern on relative yields of four Michigan first year fallow field plant species. Oecologia 45:366–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Minjas, A. N. and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. Application of monoculture yield/density relationships to plant competition in binary additive series. Am. Bot. 53:599–606.Google Scholar
10. Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.Google Scholar
11. Nelson, D. C. and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29:672–677.Google Scholar
12. Raby, B. J. and Binning, L. K. 1985. Weed competition study in ‘Russet Burbank’ and ‘Superior’ potato (Solanum tuberosum) with different management practices. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:4.Google Scholar
13. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Chapter 5 in Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetative Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 265 pp.Google Scholar
14. Rioux, R., Compeau, J. E., and Genereux, H. 1979. Effect of cultural practices and herbicides on weed population and competition in potatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:367–374.Google Scholar
15. Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationship between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895–905.Google Scholar
16. Saghir, A. R. and Markoullis, G. 1974. Effects of weed competition and herbicides on yield and quality of potatoes. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 12:533–539.Google Scholar
17. Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 29:129–133.Google Scholar
18. Selleck, G. W. and Dallyn, S. L. 1978. Herbicide treatments and potato cultivar interactions for weed control. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 32:152–156.Google Scholar
19. Singh, R. D., Gupta, R. K., Venugopal, K., and Singh, G. B. Undated. Evaluation of weedfree maintenance for mustard and potato in Sikkim. Prot. Indian Soc. Weed Sci. Page 69.Google Scholar
20. 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
21. Thakral, K. K., Pandita, M., and Khurana, S. 1985. Effect of time of weed removal on growth and yield of potato. Proc. Indian Soc. Weed Sci. Page 16.Google Scholar
22. VanHeemst, J.D.J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agric. Syst. 18:81–93.Google Scholar
23. Vitolo, D. B. and Ilnicki, R. D. 1985. Grass competition in white potatoes. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 30.Google Scholar