Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:50:40.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A mechanistic growth and development model of common ragweed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William Deen ,
Clarence J. Swanton  and
L. Anthony Hunt
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
L. Anthony Hunt
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A mechanistic model was constructed for common ragweed growth and development based on the generic plant model CROPSIM. Adaptations were made to CROPSIM's growth and development subroutines to enable common ragweed growth to be simulated. Data from field studies using a single-source common ragweed grown in monoculture and from the literature were used to parameterize the model. The influences of varying environmental conditions across years, densities, and emergence timing on leaf number, leaf area, leaf weight, height, and biomass accumulation were taken into account by the model. Deviations between simulated and measured values generally fell within a relatively narrow range. Deviations outside this range tended to be associated with common ragweed growth shortly after emergence, particularly during temperature and moisture extremes. Future versions of the CROPSIM model may need to include more detailed algorithms for upper soil surface layer temperature and moisture conditions and improved germination and emergence algorithms to reduce these deviations.

Keywords

Common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELSimulationphenology
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , December 2001 , pp. 723 - 731
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

Ball, D. A. and Shaffer, M. J. 1993. Simulating resource competition in multi-species agricultural plant communities. Weed Res. 33:299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. C. 1977. Role of temperature in the germination ecology of three summer annual weeds. Oecologia 30:377–382.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1974. Ecophysiology of Ambrosia artemisiifolia: a successional dominant. Ecology 55:112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begonia, G. B., Aldrich, R. J., and Salisbury, C. D. 1991. Soybean yield and yield components as influenced by canopy heights and duration of competition of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Res. 31:117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and Crowley, R. H. 1980. Influence of time of planting and distance from the cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) row of pitted morningglory (Ipomea lacunosa), prickly sida (Sida spinosa), and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton. Weed Sci. 28:568–572.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debaeke, P., Caussanel, J. P., Kiniry, J. R., Kafiz, B., and Mondragon, G. 1997. Modelling crop : weed interactions in wheat with ALMANAC. Weed Res. 37:325–341.Google Scholar
Deen, W., Hunt, T., and Swanton, C. J. 1998a. Influence of temperature, photoperiod, and irradiance on the phenological development of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Sci. 46:555–560.Google Scholar
Deen, W., Hunt, T., and Swanton, C. J. 1998b. Photothermal time describes common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) phenological development and growth. Weed Sci. 46:561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, C. T. 1968. Studies on the Germination, Growth, Development and Control of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). . Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 171 p.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Moore, F. D. III, and Westra, P. 1994. A plant process-economic model for wild oats management decisions in irrigated barley. Agric. Syst. 45:355–368.Google Scholar
Gebben, A. I. 1966. The Ecology of Common Ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., in Southeastern Michigan. . University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 247 p.Google Scholar
Gleeson, S. K. 1986. Biomass Allocation in Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. . Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 133 p.Google Scholar
Goudriaan, J. and van Laar, H. H. 1978. Calculation of daily totals of the gross CO2 assimilation of leaf canopies. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 26:373–382.Google Scholar
Graf, B., Gutierrez, A. P., Rakotobe, O., Zahner, P., and Delucchi, V. 1990. A simulation model for the dynamics of rice growth and development: Part II—the competition with weeds for nitrogen and light. Agric. Syst. 32:367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. 1994. Simulation of competition between barley and wild oats under different managements and climates. Ecol. Model. 71:269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, L. A. and Pararajasingham, S. 1994. CROPSIM-WHEAT: a model for describing the growth and development of wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:619–632.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Comparison of empirical models depicting density of Amaranthus retroflexus L., and relative leaf area as predictors of yield loss in maize (Zea mays L.). Weed Res. 35:207–215.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Spitters, C.J.T., Schnieders, B. J., Joenje, W., and DeGroot, W. 1992. An eco-physiological model for interspecific competition applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugarbeet: II. Model evaluation. Weed Res. 32:451–463.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, Great Britain: CAB International. 274 p.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Major, D. R. and Kiniry, J. R. 1991. Predicting day length effects on phenological processes. Pages 15–28 In Hodges, T., ed. Predicting Crop Phenology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:62–68.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. D. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanium nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40:220–226.Google Scholar
McKone, M. J. and Tonkin, D. W. 1986. Intra-population gender variation in common ragweed (Asteracea: Ambrosia artemisiifolia), a monoecious, annual herb. Oecologia 70:63–67.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P. L. and Sheehy, J. E. 1997. Comparisons of predictions and observations to assess model performance: a method of empirical evaluation. Pages 437–451 In Kropff, M. J. et al., eds. Applications of Systems Approaches at the Field Level. Dordrecht, Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., Cothren, J. T., and Hons, F. M. 1987. Soybean (Glycine max)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interspecific competition. Weed Sci. 35:647–653.Google Scholar
Neeser, C., Aguero, R., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. A mechanistic model of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population dynamics. Weed Sci. 46:673–681.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, J. E., Holst, N., Christensen, S., and Nielsen, A. M. 1997. Modelling interactions in the winter wheat agroecosystem. Aspects Appl. Biol. 50:451–458.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1992. Nutrient accumulation by weeds and their associated vegetable crops. J. Hortic. Sci. 67:189–195.Google Scholar
Sindel, B. M. and Michael, P. W. 1992. Growth and competitiveness of Senecio madagascariensis Poir (fireweed) in relation to fertilizer use and increases in soil fertility. Weed Res. 32:399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci. 37:570–574.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shrestha, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop Prod. 2:9–29.Google Scholar
Timlin, D., Papchepsky, Y. A., and Acock, B. 1996. A design for a modular, generic soil simulator to interface with plant models. Agron. J. 88:162–169.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Cousens, R. 1994. Assimilation model of competition between winter wheat and Avena fatua for light. Ann. Appl. Biol. 124:315–331.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R.M.W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemsen, R. W. 1975. Dormancy and germination of common ragweed seeds in the field. Am. J. Bot. 62:639–643.Google Scholar