Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:21:01.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield reduction from common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joseph P. Yenish ,
Beverly R. Durgan ,
Douglas W. Miller  and
Donald L. Wyse
Beverly R. Durgan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Douglas W. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yield loss of hard red spring wheat due to competition from common milkweed was measured in grower fields in Minnesota. Wheat yield loss was measured using the area of influence and additive competitive methods. Simple linear regression of wheat yield and percentage wheat yield loss against distance from a common milkweed shoot gave r 2 values of 0.013 and 0.015, respectively, indicating limited value of the area of influence model for common milkweed in spring wheat. In an additive competition model, wheat yield was reduced 47% at the highest density of 12 common milkweed shoots m−2. Coefficients of determination for percentage yield loss regressed against common milkweed shoot density were 0.548, 0.547, and 0.529 for simple linear, nonlinear rectangular hyperbolic, and linear square root function models, respectively. Regression of percentage yield loss against common milkweed biomass resulted in r 2 values of 0.566, 0.645, and 0.658 for simple linear, nonlinear rectangular hyperbolic, and linear square root function models, respectively. Restrictions of common milkweed density due to factors other than competition limited yield loss response to the simple linear phase of both the nonlinear rectangular hyperbolic and the linear square root function models previously described.

Keywords

Weed competitionarea of influenceadditive modelASCSYCommon milkweed, Asclepias syriaca L. ASCSYhard red spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 127 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Bhowmik, P. C. and Bandeen, J. D. 1976. The biology of Canadian weeds. 19. Asclepias syriaca L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56: 579–589.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donavan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35: 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, G. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1982. Distribution and interference of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in Nebraska. Weed Sci. 30: 385–388.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52: 921–927.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R. and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Common milkweed interference in spring wheat. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 42: 15.Google Scholar
Evetts, L. L. 1977. Common milkweed—the problem. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32: 96–112.Google Scholar
Evetts, L. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1976. Milkweed—a persistent perennial that reduces yields. Nebr. Farm, Ranch and Home Q. 20(1): 12–15.Google Scholar
Friesen, L., Morrison, I. N., Marshall, G., and Rother, W. 1990. Effects of volunteer wheat and barley on the growth and yield of flax. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70: 1115–1122.Google Scholar
Fry, T. A. 1992. Common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) seedling establishment and control in hard red spring, corn, and soybean. M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 110 p.Google Scholar
Groh, H. and Dore, W. G. 1945. A milkweed survey in Ontario and adjacent Quebec. Sci. Agric. 25: 463–481.Google Scholar
McLennan, B. R., Ashford, R., and Devine, M. D. 1991. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. competition with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Weed Res. 31: 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, D. H. 1985. Milkweeds and their visitors. Sci. Am. 253: 112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, L. R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1986. Weed competition and economic thresholds. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society, pp. 71–97.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 190–198.Google Scholar
Sauer, D. and Feir, D. 1974. Population and maturation characteristics of the common milkweed. Weed Sci. 22: 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed Crop Competition: A Review. N Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center. 196 p.Google Scholar