Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:33:31.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nigerian Weed Species: Intraspecific Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. A. O. Oladokun
M. A. O. Oladokun*
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Univ. of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four weed species, eragrostis (Eragrostis tenella Roem. and Schult), cogongrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.], synedrella (Synedrella nodiflora Gaertn.) and tridax (Tridax procumbens L.) were planted at 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 plants per pot. Competition affected shoot and root dry weights, height, and leaf number of all species and the reproductive characteristics of eragrostis and tridax. The interaction between species and plant density was also highly significant for shoot and root dry weights, height and leaf number. Individual plant height, shoot and root dry weights, leaf and node numbers, percent flowering per pot and the number of inflorescences produced decreased with increase in population density. This reduction was greatest in eragrostis followed by tridax. Synedrella (both disk and ray floret seeds) were least affected. There was no significant difference in the response of plants from disk floret seeds and ray floret seeds of synedrella.

Keywords

Eragrostis tenellaImperata cylindricaSyndrella nodifloraTridax procumbens
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 1978 , pp. 713 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. Bendall, G. M. 1975. The allelopathic activity of California thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.] in Tasmania. Weed Res. 15:77–81.Google Scholar
2. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Plant competition: An analysis of community functions. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. No. 398:314–334.Google Scholar
3. De Peralta, F. 1935. Some principles of competition as illustrated by Sudangrass, [Holchus Sorghum sudanensis (Piper) Hitch]. Ecol. Monogr. 5:355–404.Google Scholar
4. Deschenes, J. H. 1974. Intraspecific competition in experimental populations of weeds. Can. J. Bot. 52:1415–1421.Google Scholar
5. Donald, C. M. 1954. Competition among pasture plants, II. The influence of density on flowering and seed production in annual pasture plants. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5:585–597.Google Scholar
6. Harper, J. L. 1965. The nature and consequence of interference amongst plants. Proc. Int. Congr. on Genetics Today 2:465–482.Google Scholar
7. Harper, J. L. and Gajic, D. 1961. Experimental studies of the mortality and plasticity of a weed. Weed Res. 1:91–104.Google Scholar
8. Hinson, K. and Hanson, D. W. 1962. Competition studies in soybeans. Crop. Sci. 2:117–123.Google Scholar
9. Nedrow, W. W. 1937. Studies on the ecology of roots. Ecology 18:27–52.Google Scholar
10. Palmblad, I. G. 1968. Competition in experimental populations of weeds with emphasis on the regulation of population size. Ecology 49:26–34.Google Scholar