Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:10:38.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive Ability of Wild Oats (Avena fatua) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Claudio M. Dunan  and
Robert L. Zimdahl
Claudio M. Dunan
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Replacement series and growth analysis experiments under greenhouse and field conditions quantified and explained the competitive ability of wild oats and barley. Barley was a stronger competitor than wild oats under greenhouse and field conditions. The reciprocal yield approach showed that barley's intraspecific competition was 7.3 times greater than its interspecific competition with wild oats when calculated on a dry weight per plant basis. When leaf area per plant was the yield variable, barley's intraspecific competition was only 2.4 times greater than its interspecific competition. The difference was explained by wild oats' higher leaf area ratio. Barley had a greater leaf area, root and shoot biomass, absolute growth rate, and shoot-root ratio than wild oats, but wild oats' leaf area ratio was always higher. No differences were detected in relative growth rate and net assimilation rate.

Keywords

Wild oats, Avena fatua L., # AVEFABarley, Hordeum vulgare L. “Moravian III”Replacement seriesgrowth analysisRichards function
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 558 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Aspinall, D. and Milthorpe, F. L. 1959. An analysis of competition between barley and white persicaria. I. The effects on growth. Ann. Appl. Biol. 47:156–172.Google Scholar
2. Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. Weed Control Economics. Academic Press, Inc., London. Pages 63–78.Google Scholar
3. Connolly, J. 1988. Experimental methods in plant competition research in crop-weed systems. Weed Res. 28:431–436.Google Scholar
4. Cousens, R. D. 1986. The use of population models in the study of the economics of weed control. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Symp. Economic Weed Control. Pages 269–276.Google Scholar
5. Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., Holt, J. S., and Reints, J. S. 1989. Competitive interactions of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and wild oats (Avena fatua) grown at different densities. Weed Sci. 37:538–543.Google Scholar
6. de Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwk, Onderzoek No. 66. Wageningen 82 pp.Google Scholar
7. Elberse, W. Th. and de Kruyf, H. N. 1979. Competition between Hordeum vulgare L. and Chenopodium album L. with different dates of emergence of Chenopodium album . Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 27:13–26.Google Scholar
8. Gustavsson, A.M.D. 1986. Relative growth rate and competitive ability of annual weeds. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Symp. Economic Weed Control. Pages 105–112.Google Scholar
9. Harper, J. L. 1977. Pages 151–194 and 237–276 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
10. Hunt, R. 1982. Plant growth curves. Pages 14–60 and 121–146 in The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. E. Arnold, Ltd., London.Google Scholar
11. Idris, H. and Milthorpe, F. L. 1966. Light and nutrient supplies in the competition between barley and charlock. Oecol. Plant. 1:143–164.Google Scholar
12. Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modeling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28:465–471.Google Scholar
13. Martin, M.P.L.D. and Field, R. J. 1987. Competition between vegetative plants of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Weed Res. 27:119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Pavlychenko, T. K. and Harrington, J. B. 1934. Competitive efficiency of weeds and cereal crops. Can. J. Res. 10:77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Ross, M. A. and Harper, J. L. 1972. Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J. Ecol. 60:77–88.Google Scholar
17. Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Petersen, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268–275.Google Scholar
18. Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Biol. 22:895–905.Google Scholar
19. Spitters, C.J.T. and van den Bergh, J. P. 1982. Competition between crop and weeds: A systems approach. Pages 137–148 in Holzner, W. and Numata, M., eds. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. Dr. W. Junk Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. 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
21. Thurston, J. M. 1959. A comparative study of the growth of wild oat (Avena fatua L. and Avena ludoviciana Dur.) and of cultivated cereals with varied nitrogen supply. Ann. Appl. Biol. 47:716–739.Google Scholar
22. Venus, J. C. and Caustom, D. R. 1979. Plant growth analysis: the use of the Richards function as an alternative to polynomials exponential. Ann. Bot. 43:623–632.Google Scholar