Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:07:03.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of competition between wet-seeded rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) using a response–surface model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hanwen Ni ,
Keith Moody  and
Restituta P. Robles
Keith Moody
Affiliation:
2814 Kalialani Circle, Pukalani, Maui, HI 96768
Restituta P. Robles
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competition between wet-seeded rice and barnyardgrass under two distinct environments was analyzed using a two-parameter response–surface model at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. The findings showed that this model could predict crop yield loss due to weed competition over a wide range of crop and weed densities. The low-tillering, new plant–type cultivar was a weaker competitor and had a higher yield loss than high-tillering cultivar ‘IR72’ and a hybrid. Increasing the crop density could reduce yield loss due to weed competition. This effect was greater for the new plant type than for IR72 and the hybrid when barnyardgrass density was low. In contrast, this effect was less for the new plant type than for IR72 and the hybrid when the weed density was high. Competitiveness of the three rice cultivars was also affected by season. Crop yield loss was higher in the wet season than in the dry season.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGrice, Oryza sativa L.Competitionresponse–interface modelricebarnyardgrass
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 142 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Weed-Crop Ecology: Principles in Weed Management. North Scituate, MA: Breton. Pp. 189–214.Google Scholar
Cousens, B. R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. Camb 105:513–521.Google Scholar
De Datta, S. K. and Nantasomsaran, P. 1991. Status and prospects of direct seeded flooded rice in tropical Asia. Pages 1–16 in Direct Seeded Flooded Rice in Tropical Asia. Manila, Philippines: IRRI.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two species mixtures of plants. Ann. Appl. Ecol 22:503–517.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ramirez, H. V., Gibson, K. D., and Da Silveira Pinheiro, B. 2001. Competitiveness of semidwarf upland rice cultivars against palisadegrass (Brachiaria brizantha) and signalgrass (B. decumbens). Agron J 93:967–973.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ramirez, H. V., and Lozano, J. 1997. Suppression of junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] by irrigated rice cultivars in Latin America. Agron. J 89:516–552.Google Scholar
Fofana, B. and Rauber, R. 2000. Weed suppression ability of upland rice under low-input conditions in West Africa. Weed Res 40:271–280.Google Scholar
Garrity, D. P., Movillon, M., and Moody, K. 1992. Differential weed suppression ability in upland rice cultivars. Agron. J 84:586–591.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2003. Crop traits related to weed suppression on water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L). Weed Sci 51:87–93.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. R. and Aquino, R. C. 1986. Studies on competition in rice: III. The mechanism of competition among phenotypes. Evolution 22:529–542.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. R. and De Jesus, J. 1986. Studies on competition in rice: I. Competition in mixtures of varieties. Evolution 22:119–124.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. R. and Herrera, R. M. 1986. Studies on competition in rice: II. Competition in segregating populations. Evolution 22:529–542.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E., Dingkuhn, M., Jones, M. P., and Mahamane, M. C. 1998. The influence of rice plant type on the effect of weed competition on Oryza sativa and Oryza glabeerima . Weed Res 38:207–216.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C. J. T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res 31:97–105.Google Scholar
Martin, R. J., Cullis, B. R., and McNamara, D. W. 1987. Prediction of wheat yield loss due to competition by wild oats (Avena spp). Aust. J. Agric. Res 38:487–499.Google Scholar
Moody, K. 1982. Weed control in dry-seeded rice. Pages 161–177 in Report of a Workshop on Cropping Systems Research in Asia. Manila, Philippines: IRRI.Google Scholar
Moody, K. 1990. Yield loss due to weeds in rice in Philippines. Pages 193–202 in Crop Loss Assessment in Rice. Manila, Philippines: IRRI.Google Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, K., and Robles, R. P. 2000. Oryza sativa plant traits conferring competitive ability against weeds. Weed Sci 48:200–204.Google Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, K., Robles, R. P., Paller, E. C. Jr., Lales, J. S., and Cosico, W. C. 1996. Effect of nitrogen rate on competition of two rice cultivars against Echinochloa crus-galli . Philippine J. Weed Sci 24:53–62.Google Scholar
Pantone, D. J. and Baker, J. B. 1991a. Reciprocal yield analysis of red rice (Oryza sativa) competition in cultivated rice. Weed Sci 39:42–47.Google Scholar
Pantone, D. J. and Baker, J. B. 1991b. Weed-crop competition models and response-surface analysis of red rice competition in cultivated rice: a review. Crop Sci 31:1105–1110.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1983. Weeds of major economic importance in rice and yield losses due to weed competition. Pages 19–36 in the Proceedings of the Conference on Weed Control in Rice. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. 1983a. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci 31:1–11.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. 1983b. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 2. Marketable yield. Neth. J. Agric. Sci 31:143–155.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T., Kropff, M. J., and de Groot, W. 1989. Competition between maize and Echinochloa crus-galli analysed by a hyperbolic regression model. Ann. Appl. Biol 115:541–551.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, H., Morishima, H., and Oka, H. I. 1978. An experiment on the interaction between cultivated rice and barnyardgrass at different plant densities. Agroecosystems 4:449–458.Google Scholar