Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:53:39.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sunflower (Helianthus annum) and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Interference in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Edward E. Schweizer  and
Larry D. Bridge
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Larry D. Bridge
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intraspecific interference of populations of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic), as well as interspecific populations of these two broadleaf weeds, in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy D2′) was determined in 2-yr field experiments. Sunflower was more competitive in sugarbeets than was velvetleaf. At densities of 6, 12, 18, and 24 sunflower plants/30 m of row, root yields were reduced 40, 52, 67, and 73%, respectively. At the same densities of velvetleaf, root yields were reduced only 14, 17, 25, and 30%, respectively. Interspecific interference of these two broadleaf weeds at the same densities reduced root yields 19, 36, 43, and 56%, respectively. The minimum number of weeds required/30 m of row to reduce sugarbeet root yields was predicted to be 1 for sunflower, 9 to 12 for velvetleaf, and 2 to 7 for an equal population of sunflower and velvetleaf.

Keywords

Weed lossesweed thresholdscompetition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , September 1982 , pp. 514 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Association of Official Agriculture Chemists. 1955. Pages 564–568 in Official Methods of Analysis. 8th ed. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2. Carruthers, A. and Oldfield, J.F.T. 1961. Methods for the assessment of beet quality. Int. Sugar J. 63:72–74, 103–105, 137–139.Google Scholar
3. Donald, C. M. 1961. Competition for light in crops and pastures. Pages 282–313 in Mechanisms in Biological Competition. Soc. Exp. Biol. Symposia 15. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
4. Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon tbeophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. 1973. Predicting sugarbeet root losses based on kochia densities. Weed Sci. 21:565–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris . Weed Sci. 29:128–133.Google Scholar
7. Staniforth, D. W. 1965. Competitive effects of three foxtail species on soybeans. Weeds 13:191–193.Google Scholar
8. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition, a review. Int. Plant Prot. Center, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 195 pp.Google Scholar