Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:16:18.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Alternative Approach for Evaluating the Efficacy of Potential Biocontrol Agents of Weeds. 2. Path Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Dan J. Pantone ,
William A. Williams  and
Armand R. Maggenti
Dan J. Pantone
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Range Sci., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
William A. Williams
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Range Sci., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Armand R. Maggenti
Affiliation:
Dep. Nematol., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Path analysis was used to assess the efficacy of the fiddleneck flower gall nematode as a weed biocontrol agent of coast fiddleneck in competition with wheat during 2 yr of field experiments. The path analysis revealed that the number of inflorescences/plant for fiddleneck and the number of heads/plant for wheat were the most important yield components that determine fecundity and seed yield. The density of fiddleneck had a much greater impact on the yield components of fiddleneck than did the density of wheat or the nematode rate of inoculation. The nematode had its greatest negative impact on the number of seeds/flower of fiddleneck and its greatest positive impact on the number of heads/plant of wheat. Path analysis predicts that a biocontrol agent that has a large negative direct effect on the number of inflorescences/plant for fiddleneck would be more efficacious in decreasing fecundity and seed yield than an agent that only impacts the number of flowers/inflorescence, seeds/flower, or biomass/seed.

Keywords

Coast fiddleneck, Amsinckia intermedia Fischer and Meyer ♯3 AMSINwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Anza’fiddleneck flower gall nematode, Anguina amsinckiae (Steiner and Scott, 1935) Thorne, 1961Yield componentsbiological controlcompetitioninterferencenematodesAmsinckia intermediaTriticum aestivumAnguina amsinckiaeAMSIN
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 1989 , pp. 778 - 783
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Afifi, A. A. and Clark, V. 1984. Path analysis. Pages 235–237 in Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
2. Charudattan, R. 1985. The use of natural and genetically altered strains of pathogens for weed control. Pages 347–372 in Herzog, D. and Hoy, M., eds. Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
3. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Competition in cultivated crops. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 398:202–233.Google Scholar
4. Dewey, D. R. and Lu, K. H. 1959. A correlation and path-coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass seed production. Agron. J. 51:515–518.Google Scholar
5. Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd ed. Pages 257–266. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
6. Hampton, R. D. 1975. The nature of bean yield reduction by bean yellow and bean common mosaic viruses. Phytopathology 65: 1342–1346.Google Scholar
7. Hokkanen, H. 1985. Exploiter—victim relationships of major plant diseases: Implications for biological weed control. Agric., Ecosystems, and Environ. 14:63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hokkanen, H. and Pimentel, D. 1984. New approach for selecting biological control agents. Can. Entomol. 116:1109–1121.Google Scholar
9. Jordan, N. 1989. Path analysis of growth differences between weed and nonweed populations of poorjoe (Diodia teres) in competition with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:129–136.Google Scholar
10. Li, C. C. 1975. Path Analysis — A Primer. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CA. 347 pp.Google Scholar
11. Loehlin, J. C. 1987. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 273 pp.Google Scholar
12. Mitchell-Olds, T. 1987. Analysis of local variation in plant size. Ecology 68:82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Pantone, D. J., Williams, W. A., and Maggenti, A. R. 1989. An alternative approach for evaluating the efficacy of potential biocontrol agents of weeds. 1. Inverse linear model. Weed Sci. 37:771–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Puckeridge, D. W. and Donald, C. M. 1967. Competition among wheat plants sown at a wide range of densities. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 18: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. SAS Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 ed. Pages 655–709. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
16. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. Pages 642–661. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
17. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
18. Templeton, G. E. 1988. Biological control of weeds. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 3:69–72.Google Scholar
19. van Bruggen, A.H.C. and Arneson, P. A. 1986. Path coefficient analysis of effects of Rhizoctonia solani on growth and development of dry beans. Phytopathology 76:874–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. J. Agric. Res. 20:557–585.Google Scholar
21. Wright, S. 1934. The method of path coefficients. Ann. Math. Statistics 5:161–215.Google Scholar