No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata) growth, development, and seed production
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2017
Abstract
Field experiments were conducted to determine the growth, development, and seed yield response of scentless chamomile when planted at various dates throughout the growing season. Scentless chamomile emerged within 6 to 15 d of planting and required 75 to 131 growing degree days (GDD). Flowering occurred within 56 to 82 d of planting and required 584 to 845 GDD. Plants that emerged in mid-July and onward did not flower in that season but survived as winter annuals. Spring-planted scentless chamomile matured within 97 to 127 d and required 906 to 1,176 GDD. Plants that emerged in May and June attained more leaf area and biomass than plants that emerged in mid-summer. Plants that emerged early in the growing season produced three-to fourfold more seed than plants that emerged at later dates. Scentless chamomile seed production ranged from 71,000 to 256,000 plants−1 depending on planting date and existing environmental conditions. Results are discussed in terms of its potential to become an increasingly troublesome weed in crops of the Canadian prairies and possible management strategies for its control.
Keywords
- Type
- Weed Biology and Ecology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1997 by the Weed Science Society of America
References
Literature Cited
Alberta Agriculture. 1982. Scentless Chamomile: A Problem Weed. Edmonton, AB, Canada : Agridex 640-6. 3 p.Google Scholar
Alberta Agriculture. 1996. In Crop Protection with Chemicals. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Agdex 606-1. pp. 36–231.Google Scholar
Bowes, G. G., Thomas, A. G., and Lefkovitch, L. P.
1995. Changes with time in the germination of buried scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata Merat) seeds. Can. J. Plant Sci.
75: 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. W., Thomas, A. G., Peschken, D. P., Bowes, G. G., and Derksen, D. A.
1991. Effects of summer and winter annual scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata Merat) interference on spring wheat yield. Can. J. Plant Sci.
71: 841–850.Google Scholar
Kay, Q.O.N.
1965. Experimental and comparative ecological studies of selected weeds. Ph.D. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford, Great Britain. 221 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T.
1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. Pages 101–129
in
Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology. Volume 1. Reproduction and Ecophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Russelo, D., Edey, S., and Godfrey, J.
1974. Pages 147–151
in
Selected Tables and Conversions used in Agrometeorology and Related Fields. Publication No. 1522. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H.
1980. In Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 195–238.Google Scholar
Woo, S. L.
1989. Biosystematics and life history strategies of scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata Merat) in Canada. M. Sc. thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 194 p.Google Scholar
Woo, S. L., Thomas, A. G., Peschken, D. P., Bowes, G. G., Douglas, D. W., Harms, V. L., and McClay, A. S.
1991. The biology of Canadian weeds. 99. Matricaria perforata Merat (Asteraceae). Can. J. Plant Sci.
71: 1101–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar