Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:41:42.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of Critical Period of Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. Singh ,
M. C. Saxena ,
B. E. Abu-Irmaileh ,
S. A. Al-Thahabi  and
N. I. Haddad
M. Singh
Affiliation:
International Ctr. for Agric. Res. in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
M. C. Saxena
Affiliation:
International Ctr. for Agric. Res. in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
B. E. Abu-Irmaileh
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant Prot., Fac. of Agric., Univ. Jordan, Amman, Jordan
S. A. Al-Thahabi
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant Prot., Fac. of Agric., Univ. Jordan, Amman, Jordan
N. I. Haddad
Affiliation:
ICARDA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An estimation of the critical period of weed control is helpful in formulating appropriate weed-control strategies. A regression approach is presented to estimate the thresholds of critical period of weed control and time of equal interference (or time of onset of competition). In this approach, yields were either a linear or logistic function of the duration of weed-free and weed-infested periods. Confidence intervals of the thresholds of critical period and time of equal interference were determined for the linear model. An approximation to the standard error of critical period and associated confidence interval were given for any general form of the model. The method was applied to estimate the critical period of weed control in rainfed lentil using data from four field experiments conducted in Jordan. The relationship of yield with the duration of weed-free period was described by a linear function, whereas the relationship with the duration of weed-infested period showed a better fit with a logistic function. To maintain 90% of maximum seed yield, the maximum time allowed to let weeds grow after the crop emergence varied over locations from 4.8 to 5.8 wk. The same level could be achieved if the crop is kept free of weeds from its emergence until 12.1 to 14.1 wk; while the time when the same amount of yield would be achieved under both approaches varied from 7.7 to 9.3 wk after crop emergence. For straw yield, the time to get 90% of the maximum yield could vary over location from a maximum of 4.5 to 8.0 wk under weed-infestation and from at least 11.5 to 13.5 wk when weed-free. The time to achieve the same amount of straw under two systems of competition varied from 6.5 to 9.9 wk after crop emergence. One of the four experiments showed a longer critical period than the others for seed and straw yields.

Keywords

Lentil, Lens culinaris Medic. ‘Jordan 2.’Weed interferencelinear functionlogistic functionlentil
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 273 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Al-Thahabi, S. A. 1991. Weed control in lentils. . University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan, pp. 100.Google Scholar
2. Al-Thahabi, S. A., Yasin, J. Z., Abu-Irmaileh, B. E., Haddad, N. I., and Saxena, M. C. 1994. Effect of weed removal on productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Med.) in Mediterranean environment. J. of Agron. and Crop Sci. 172: 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Basler, F. 1980. Lentil weed control research at the International Center for Agriculture in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). LENS Newsletter 7: 58–62.Google Scholar
4. Bonilla, J. S. 1984. Periodo critico del maiz en competencia con las malas hierbas. Centro-Agricola. 11: 37–44.Google Scholar
5. Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1967. The effect of weed removal treatments on sorghum growth. Weed Sci. 15: 204–207.Google Scholar
6. Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28: 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5: 664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cox, C. 1990. Fieller's theorem, the likelihood, and the delta method. Biometrics 46: 709–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 25: 168–170.Google Scholar
10. Haddad, N. 1986. Recommendation about lentil farming in Jordan. Extension Bulletin No. 3. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, Amman. In Arabic.Google Scholar
11. Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40: 441–447.Google Scholar
12. Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lamb-squaters (Chenopodium album) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1991. Growth and interaction of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39: 570–574.Google Scholar
14. Kotz, S. and Johnson, N. L., (editors-in-chief). 1983. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences Vol 3. (in Page 86). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
15. Kropff, M. J., Lotz, L. A. P., and Weaver, S. E. 1993. Practical Applications. Pages 149–169 in Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. eds. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. CAB International in association with the The International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
16. Kwon, S. L., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Interference durations of red rice (Oryza sativa) in rice (O. sativa). Weed Sci. 39: 363–368.Google Scholar
17. McWhorter, C. G. and Anderson, J. M. 1979. Hemp sesbania competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27: 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Nieto, J. H., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pans (c), 14: 159–166.Google Scholar
19. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 265 pp.Google Scholar
20. Saxena, M. C. and Wassimi, N. 1980. Crop weed competition studies in lentils. LENS Newsletter 6: 55–57.Google Scholar
21. Singh, G. and Singh, D. 1990. Weed competition studies in lentil (Lens culinaris Medic). Indian J. of Weed Sci. 22(1-2): 1–6.Google Scholar
22. Thakral, K. K., Pandita, M. L., Khurana, S. C., and Kalloo, G. 1989. Effect of time of weed removal on growth and yield of potatos. Weed Res. 29: 33–38.Google Scholar
23. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20: 379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Weed Sci. 41: 194–200.Google Scholar
25. van Heemst, H.D.J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agric. Sys. 18: 81–93.Google Scholar
26. Walker, R. H., Wells, L. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Bristly Starbur (Acanthospermum hispidum) interference in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37: 196–200.Google Scholar
27. Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24: 317–325.Google Scholar
28. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31: 476–481.Google Scholar
29. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition—a Review. International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
30. Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and adaptation of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–155 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar