Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:34:05.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference Between Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), Smooth Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joe E. Toler ,
J. Bradley Guice  and
Edward C. Murdock
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Exp. Statistics Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634
J. Bradley Guice
Affiliation:
Agron Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634
Edward C. Murdock
Affiliation:
Agron Dep., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competitive relationships between johnsongrass, smooth pigweed, and soybean were examined in 1986 and 1987, and the adequacy of an additive response model (ARM) and product response model (PRM) in predicting yield reductions due to multispecies weed populations was assessed. A severe drought reduced soybean yields statewide in 1986, whereas ideal conditions for soybean production were experienced in 1987. Averaged over monospecific weed densities of 1, 2, 4, and 8 plants 4.6 m−1 of row, smooth pigweed intercepted 2.5 and 1.8 times more light than johnsongrass in 1986 and 1987, respectively. In multispecies populations having either 4 or 8 smooth pigweed plants 4.6 m−1 of row, light interception by johnsongrass was negligible. Averaged over monospecific weed densities, smooth pigweed produced 5160 and 1760 kg ha−1, while johnsongrass produced 1530 and 450 kg ha−1 dry weight in 1986 and 1987, respectively. In multispecies populations, smooth pigweed contributed more than 80% of the total weed biomass. As monospecific johnsongrass density increased, reductions in soybean seed yield were linear, whereas exponential response patterns adequately characterized reductions in soybean seed yield due to smooth pigweed interference. Based on calibrated monospecific responses, the ARM and PRM generally projected higher soybean seed yield reductions for multispecies weed populations than were observed. When crop production conditions were favorable and competitive effects of weeds were low, both models adequately predicted soybean seed yield reductions. When dry conditions unfavorable for crop production existed, the PRM best accommodated the interactive effects between johnsongrass, smooth pigweed, and soybean.

Keywords

Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. ♯ SORHAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. ♯ AMACHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Braxton.’Additive response modelcompetitionlight interceptionmultispecies interferenceproduct response modelrelative crowding coefficientAMACHSORHA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 331 - 338
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. Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reductions from weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 199–206.Google Scholar
2. Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30: 507–513.Google Scholar
3. Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1987. Influence of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density and period of competition on cotton yield. Weed Sci. 35: 63–67.Google Scholar
4. Buntley, G. L. and Bauer, L. L. 1974. Page 31 in Soybean production on some major soils in Tennessee. Univ. of Tenn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 537. 42 pp.Google Scholar
5. Burrows, P. M. 1987. Interaction concepts for analyses of responses to mixtures of nematode populations. Pages 82–93 in Veech, J. A. and Dickson, D. W., eds., Vistas on Nematology. Soc. of Nematologists, Inc., Hyattsville, MD.Google Scholar
6. Coble, H. D. 1987. Using economic thresholds for weeds in soybeans. WSSA Abstr. 27: 94.Google Scholar
7. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey—Southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 400–404.Google Scholar
8. Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Crop Sci. 11: 929–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Fisher, R. A. and MacKenzie, W. A. 1923. Studies in crop rotation. II. The manurial response of different potato varieties. J. of Agric. Sci. 13: 311–320.Google Scholar
10. Gilbert, N. 1963. Non-additive combining abilities. Genetical Research, Cambridge 4: 65–73.Google Scholar
11. Harper, J. L. 1977. Pages 258–259 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
12. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.Google Scholar
13. Mandel, J. 1969. The partitioning of interaction in analysis of variance. J. of Res. of the Natl. Bur. of Stds. 73B: 309–328.Google Scholar
14. 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
15. Murdock, E. C., Banks, P. A., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Shade development effects on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 34: 711–717.Google Scholar
16. Murphy, T. R. and Gossett, B. J. 1981. Influence of shading by soybeans (Glycine max) on weed suppression. Weed Sci. 29: 610–615.Google Scholar
17. Muzik, T. J. 1970. Competition. Page 60 in Muzik, T. J., ed. Weed Biology and Control. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
18. Nave, W. R. and Wax, L. M. 1971. Effect of weeds on soybean yield and harvesting efficiency. Weed Sci. 19: 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Santelmann, P. W. and Evetts, L. 1971. Germination and herbicide susceptibility of six pigweed species. Weed Sci. 19: 51–54.Google Scholar
20. Sims, B. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Mutual influences of seedling johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 139–147.Google Scholar
21. Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33: 199–202.Google Scholar
22. Street, J. E., Snipes, C. E., McGuire, J. A., and Buchanan, G. A. 1985. Competition of a binary weed system with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33: 807–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Williams, C. S. and Hayes, R. M. 1984. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 498–501.Google Scholar
24. Wyse, D. L. 1987. Perennial weed thresholds. WSSA. Abstr. 27: 93.Google Scholar
25. Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1982. Influence of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) density and duration of interference on soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30: 614–619.Google Scholar