Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:34:44.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of method of phosphorus application on smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) interference in lettuce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bielinski M. Santos ,
Joan A. Dusky ,
William M. Stall ,
Thomas A. Bewick  and
Donn G. Shilling
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110690, Gainesville, FL 32611
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110690, Gainesville, FL 32611
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
USDA-CSREES-PAS, Mailstop 2220, Washington, D.C. 20250
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 2725 Binion Road, Apopka, FL 32703
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted to investigate the influence of P application method on the critical period of smooth pigweed and common purslane interference in lettuce. Studies were carried out in low-P histosols, where supplemental P fertilization is needed for lettuce production. Phosphorus was either broadcast or banded 5 cm beneath the lettuce rows at rates of 250 or 125 kg ha−1, respectively. Seedlings of either smooth pigweed or common purslane were transplanted at a density of 16 plants per 5.4 m2 (6-m row by 0.9 m wide). Weed interference duration was achieved by manual removal 2, 4, 6, or 8 wk after lettuce emergence and subsequently keeping the plot weed free until harvest. A weed-free control within each P regimen was also established. Marketable head number, head fresh yield, and head diameter were measured at harvest. Weed-free lettuce fresh yield was 20% higher with banded P than broadcast applications. In the weed–lettuce mixtures, the P regimen by weed removal interaction affected lettuce fresh yield and head diameter but not head number. Compared with broadcast P application, banded P extended the time needed to cause significant weed interference in lettuce by 10 d: from 24 to 34 d for smooth pigweed and from 37 to 47 d for common purslane.

Keywords

Common purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHlettuce, Lactuca sativa L.Critical periodinterferenceintegrated weed management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 797 - 801
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

Alkamper, J. 1976. Influence of weed infestation on effect of fertilizer dressings. Pflanzen.-Nachr. Bayer 29:191–235.Google Scholar
Bottcher, D., Hanlon, E., and Izuno, F. 1992. Fertility best management practices for phosphorus control on organic soils: banding fertilizer. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Bull. AGR-53. Gainesville, FL: IFAS. 4 p.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusky, J. A. and Stall, W. M. 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in Florida lettuce production. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc 101:367–370.Google Scholar
[FASS] Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Florida Agricultural Statistics: Vegetables Summary 1997–1998. Tallahasee, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 64 p.Google Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:737–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochmuth, G., Hanlon, E., Nagata, R., Snyder, G., and Schueneman, T. 1994. Crisphead lettuce: fertilization recommendations for crisphead lettuce grown on organic soils in Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Bull. SP-153. Gainesville, FL: IFAS. 25 p.Google Scholar
Hochmuth, G., Rice, R., and Simonne, E. 2002. Phosphorus management for vegetable production in Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Bull. HS-105. Gainesville, FL: IFAS. 4 p.Google Scholar
Izuno, F. T., Bottcher, A. B., Coale, F. J., Sanchez, C. A., and Jones, D. B. 1995. Agricultural BMPs for phosphorus reduction in south Florida. Trans. ASAE 38:735–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. G., van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2001. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci 49:326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. N., Hochmuth, G. J., Vavrina, C. S., Stall, W. M., Kucharek, T. A., and Webb, S. E. 2002. Lettuce, endive, escarole production in Florida. Pages 195–202 in Olson, S. O. and Maynard, D. N. eds. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida, 2002–2003. Gainesville, FL: IFAS.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol 1:190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, P. E. 1995. Effects of fertilizer and stubble burning on downy brome competition in winter wheat. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 26:951–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sample, E. C., Soper, R. J., and Racz, G. J. 1980. Reactions of phosphate fertilizers in soils. Pages 263–304 in Khasawneh, F. E. ed. The Role of Phosphorus in Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C. A. 1990. Soil-testing and fertilization recommendations for crop production on organic soils in Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Bull. Gainesville, FL: IFAS. 876.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C. A., Swanson, S., and Porter, P. S. 1990. Banding P to improve fertilizer use efficiency of lettuce. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 115:581–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Influence of smooth pigweed and common purslane densities on lettuce yields as affected by phosphorus fertility. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc 110:315–317.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Phosphorus effects on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Sci 46:307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 2003. Influencia de la fertilización fosforada sobre la interferencia de Amaranthus hybridus y Portulaca oleracea en lechuga producida en suelos orgánicos. Manejo Integrado Plagas Agroecol 67:13–17.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 1990. SAS Procedures Guides. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 567 p.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Effects of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci 42:556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sindel, B. M. and Michael, P. W. 1992. Growth and competitiveness of Senesio madagascariensis Poir. (fireweed) in relation to fertilizer use and increases in soil fertility. Weed Res 32:399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 578 p.Google ScholarPubMed
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1985. United States Standards for Grades of Lettuce. Washington, D.C.: Agricultural Marketing Service. 125 p.Google Scholar
Windemuller, P., Anderson, D. L., Aalderink, R. H., Abtew, W., and Obeysekera, J. 1997. Modeling flow in the Everglades Agricultural Area irrigation/drainage canal network. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc 33:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition: A review. Corvalis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. 175 p.Google Scholar