Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:28:02.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pennsylvania Smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) Interference in Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

H. D. Coble  and
R. L. Ritter
H. D. Coble
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650
R. L. Ritter
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum L.) interference in soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pickett 71’] were studied in the field under a naturally occurring weed population. Soybean seed yield was reduced an average of 13% by a density of eight Pennsylvania smartweed plants per 10 m of row. Greater yield reductions of 21, 37, and 62% resulted from full-season interference by densities of 16, 32, and 240 weeds per 10 m of row, respectively. Fewer than five weeds per 10 m of row did not significantly reduce crop yield. A natural population of 240 weeds per 10 m of row did not reduce soybean yield if the period of interference was limited to 6 weeks or less after crop emergence. However, more than 6 weeks of weed interference resulted in significant yield reduction. Conversely, if the crop was kept weed-free for a period of 4 weeks or more after emergence, seed yield was not reduced. No allelopathic interaction between the two species was observed in greenhouse studies using a recirculating nutrient solution and alternate pots of soybeans and Pennsylvania smartweed.

Keywords

Competitionallelopathy
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 1978 , pp. 556 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. Anderson, J. M. and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybean production. Weed Sci. 24:397–400.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bell, D. T. and Koeppe, D. E. 1972. Noncompetitive effects of giant foxtail on the growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.Google Scholar
4. Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weeds 16:396–400.Google Scholar
5. Eaton, B. J., Feltner, K. C., and Russ, O. G. 1973. Venice mallow competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 21:89–94.Google Scholar
6. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agric. Exp. Stn. Cir. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
7. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.Google Scholar
8. Staniforth, D. W. 1965. Competitive effects of three foxtail species on soybeans. Weeds 13:191–193.Google Scholar
9. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.Google Scholar
10. Waldrep, T. W. and McLaughlin, R. D. 1969. Cocklebur competition and control. Soybean Farmer 3:26–27, 30.Google Scholar
11. Weber, C. R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Competitive relationships in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron. J. 49:440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14:49–51.Google Scholar