Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:31:13.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Cousens
R. Cousens
Affiliation:
Long Ashton Research Station Weed Research Division, Begbroke Hill, Yarnton, Oxford, 0X5 1PF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A hyperbolic model relating crop yield to weed density is extended to include crop density as a further variable. Other models were obtained from published sources, eight being originally applied to yield of above-ground biomass and six to marketable yield. Data were obtained from a field experiment in which spring wheat and spring barley were planted either in monoculture or together and at a range of densities. Further data were obtained from a published experiment on Sinapis alba and barley grown in containers. The models were fitted to data using maximum likelihood estimation. Comparisons of residual sums of squares showed that for the wheat and barley field experiment biomass yield and marketable yield were sufficiently described by a three-parameter model. The Baeumer & de Wit (1968) equation proposed for replacement series experimental designs is considered reasonable for the analysis of field additive designs provided the parameters are interpreted in agronomic terms. For the Sinapis alba and barley experiment more complex models could be justified.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 513 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Baeumer, K. & de Wit, C. T. (1968). Competitive interference of plant species in monocultures and mixed stands. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 16, 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H., Hill, J. & Baghott, K. (1981). Wild oat competition in spring wheat. Proceedings 33rd Annual Californian Weed Conference, pp. 13–24.Google Scholar
Carter, H. W., Norton, H. W. & Dungan, G. H. (1957). Wheat and cheat. Agronomy Journal 49, 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. (1985). A simple model relating yield loss to weed density, and a comparison with other models. Annals of Applied Biology (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R., Peters, N. C. B. & Marshall, C. J. (1984). Models of yield loss-weed density relationships. Proceedings 1th International Symposium on Weed Biology, Ecology and Systematics, Columa EWRS, Paris, pp. 367–374.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. (1984). The population biology of Agrostemma githago. Ph.D. thesis, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
Hakansson, S. (1983). Competition and production in short-lived crop-weed stands. Density effects. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Instilutionen for vaxtodling Rapport 127, 85 pp.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N. & Runeckles, V. C. (1984). A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. Journal of Applied Ecology 21, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. H. (1979). Influence of weed species and density on the yield of crops. Proceedings Western Australia Weeds Conference, pp. 92–94.Google Scholar
Ross, G. J. S. (1980). Maximum Likelihood Program. The Statistics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Shinozaki, K. & Kira, T. (1956). Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics of Osaka City University Series D, 7, 35–72.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. (1983 a). An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 31, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. (1983 b). An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 2. Marketable yield. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 31, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, V. J. (1970). A mathematical approach to fitting parameters in a competition model. Journal of Applied Ecology 7, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. (1983). Crop yield and planting density. Annals of Botany 52, 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. (1981). Interference in pure and mixed populations of Agrostemma githago. Journal of Applied Ecology 18, 967–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. (1982). A neighbourhood model of annual plant interference. Ecology 63, 1237–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, A. J. (1981). The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. (1980). Weed-Crop Competition: A Review, 196 pp. International Plant Protection Center, U.S.A.Google Scholar