Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:55:10.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterizing Weed Populations in Different Turfgrass Sites throughout the Klang Valley of Western Peninsular Malaysia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Md. Kamal Uddin ,
Abdul Shukor Juraimi ,
Mohd Razi Ismail  and
James T. Brosnan
Md. Kamal Uddin*
Affiliation:
Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Department of Crop Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Abdul Shukor Juraimi
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Mohd Razi Ismail
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
James T. Brosnan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Building, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field survey was conducted in 2007 to characterize weed populations in different turfgrass sites throughout the Klang Valley of western Peninsular Malaysia. Sites included golf course putting greens, athletic fields, sod farms, and residential lawns. Weeds present in each site were identified and the data were used to calculate frequency, distribution uniformity, density, relative abundance, and community coefficient values for each species. Seventy-nine weed species, belonging to 16 families, were found. The most species were found on residential lawns, and the fewest were found on golf course putting greens; athletic fields and sod farms ranked intermediately. A total of 19 different weed species were classified as major (relative abundance ≥ 15), and abundance rankings varied by turfgrass area. Greater kyllinga had the highest relative abundance values on athletic fields (45.5) and golf course putting greens (71.5), and the second highest value (21.7) on residential lawns. Forked fringerush and annual sedge had the greatest relative abundance values on residential lawns and sod farms, respectively. Cogongrass was reported on 15% of the residential lawns evaluated. The heterogeneity of weed species composition suggests that control strategies will vary by turfgrass use area. Quantifying weed population dynamics will help researchers delineate integrated weed management strategies to turfgrass managers in Malaysia.

Un estudio de campo fue desarrollado en 2007 para clasificar poblaciones de maleza en diferentes sitios sembrados con césped a lo largo del Valle Klang al Oeste de la Península de Malasia. Los sitios incluyeron campos de golf, campos deportivos, viveros de césped y jardines residenciales. Cualquier maleza presente en cada sitio fue identificada y usada para calcular la frecuencia, uniformidad de la distribución, densidad, abundancia relativa y el valor del coeficiente comunitario para cada especie. Fueron encontradas setenta y nueve especies de maleza pertenecientes a 16 familias. La mayoría de éstas especies se localizaron en jardines residenciales mientras que el menor porcentaje se encontró en los campos de golf; un rango intermedio se encontró en campos deportivos y viveros de césped. Un total de 19 especies diferentes de maleza se clasificaron como de mayor rango (abundancia relativa ≥ 15) y dicha abundancia varió de acuerdo al área sembrada con césped. La Cyperus aromaticus tuvo el mayor rango de abundancia relativa en campos deportivos (45.5) y en campos de golf (71.5), y el segundo valor más alto (21.7) se encontró en jardines residenciales. La Fimbristylis dichotoma L. y la Cyperus compressus tuvieron el mayor valor de abundancia relativa en jardines residenciales y viveros de césped, respectivamente. Se reportó la Imperata cylindrica L. en el 15% de los jardines residenciales evaluados. La composición heterogénea de las especies de maleza sugiere que las estrategias de control deben variar de acuerdo al uso que se le dará al césped. La cuantificación de las dinámicas de poblaciones de maleza ayudará a los investigadores a delinear estrategias integradas de manejo para los responsables de la actividad en áreas de césped en Malasia.

Keywords

Greater kyllingaCyperus aromaticus (Ridley) Mattf. & Kük CYPATforked fringerushFimbristylis dichotoma L. FMDIannual sedgeCyperus compressus L. CYPCPcogongrassImperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. IMPCYRelative abundanceweed populationsinvasive weedsnoxious weeds
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 173 - 181
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

Adams, W. A. 1980. Effects of nitrogen and cutting height on the shoot growth, nutrient removal and turfgrass composition of initially perennial ryegrass dominant sports. Pages 343–350. In Beard, J. B. Proceedings of the 2nd International Turfgrass Research Conference, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol 12:531–536.Google Scholar
Andersson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1998. Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen. Weed Sci 46:30–38.Google Scholar
Angelis, N. G. and Angelis, B. L. D. 1999. Ornamentals: landscaping of the other applications. R. Bras. Ornam 5:12–19.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2009a. United States Federal Noxious Weeds List. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist2006.pdf. Accessed: April 17, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2009b. Invasive Plant Factsheets. http://wssa.net/Weeds/Invasive/FactSheets/index.htm. Accessed April 17, 2009.Google Scholar
Barberi, P., Silvestri, N., and Bonari, E. 1997. Weed communities of winter wheat as influenced by input level and rotation. Weed Res 37:301–313.Google Scholar
Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurement for Terrestrial Vegetation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 525.Google Scholar
Branes, D. E. and Chan, L. G. 1990. Common weeds of Malaysia and their control. Shah Alam, Malaysia: Ancom. 1–349.Google Scholar
Busey, P. 2003. Cultural management of weeds in turfgrass: a review. Crop Sci 43:1899–1911.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. 1994. Future directions and needs for weed science research. Weed Technol 8:410–412.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. The impact of herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res 35:311–320.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1984. Weed survey—southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep 37:192–198.Google Scholar
Emmons, R. D. 2000. Turfgrass Science and Management (3rd ed.). New York: Delmar, Thompson Learning, Inc. 178.Google Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
Gaussoin, R. E. and Branham, B. E. 1989. Influence of cultural factors on species dominance in a mixed stand of annual bluegrass/creeping bent-grass. Crop Sci 29:480–484.Google Scholar
Hanson, D. L. 1990. System approach to weed management in turfgrass. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf 42:94–104.Google Scholar
Juraimi, A. S. 2001. Turfgrass: types, uses and maintenance. Garden Asia 8:40–43.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol 5:460–466.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. B., Whitewell, T., McCarty, L. B., and Bridges, W. C. 2000. Mowing and nitrogen influence green kyllinga (Kyllinga brevefolia) infestation in Tifway Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon x. Cynodon transvaalensis) turf. Weed Technol 14:471–475.Google Scholar
Maciel, C. D. G., Poletine, J. P., Aquino, C. J. R., Ferreira, D. M., and Maio, R. M. D. 2008. Floristic composition of the weed community in Paspalum notatum Flügge Turfgrasses in Assis, Brazil. SP. Planta Daninha 26:57–64.Google Scholar
McClosky, W. B., Baker, P. B., and Sherman, W. 1998. Survey of cotton weeds and weed control practices in Arizona upland cotton fields. Tucson, AZ: College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, Publication AZ1006.Google Scholar
McCully, K. V., Sampson, M. G., and Watson, A. K. 1991. Weed survey of Nova Scotia lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Weed Sci 29:180–185.Google Scholar
Murray, J. J., Klingman, D. L., Nash, R. G., and Woolson, E. A. 1983. Eight years of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer treatments on Kentucky bluegrass (Pao pratensis) turf. Weed Sci 31:825–831.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and Murdoch, C. L. 1999. Mature goosegrass (Eleusine indica) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) with a metribuzin–diclofop combination. Weed Technol 13:169–171.Google Scholar
Paramananthan, S. 2000. Soils of Malaysia. Their Characteristics and Identification. Volume 1. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Academy Sciences Malaysia. 1–611.Google Scholar
Qian, Y. L. and Engelke, M. C. 1999. Performance of five turfgrasses under linear gradient irrigation. HortScience 34:893–896.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J. S., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 589.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2006. 9.1.3 Procedures Guide 2nd ed., Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Google Scholar
Sit, A. K., Bhattacharaya Sarkar, M. B., and Arunachalam, V. 2007. Weed floristic composition in palm gardens in plains of eastern Himalayan region of West Bengal. Current Sci 92:1434–1439.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1983. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 73–80.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Légère, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1997. Weed species diversity in spring barley varies with crop rotation and tillage, but not with nutrient source. Weed Sci 45:798–806.Google Scholar
Summerlin, J. R. Jr., Coble, H. D., and Yelverton, F. H. 2000. Effect of mowing on perennial sedges. Weed Sci 48:501–507.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Sci 33:34–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1987. Weed survey of Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Saskatchewan, Canada: Agric Canada Regina Weed Surveys Series Publication 87-1. 251.Google Scholar
Tjitrosoedirdjo, S. S., Utomo, I. H., and Wiroatmodjo, J. 1984. Weed Management in Plantation Crops. Jakarta, Indonesia: PT Gramedia. 208.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol 11:308–317.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A., Lamboy, J., and Rossi, F. 2000. Weeds and Your Lawn. IPM Brochure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Wiecko, G. 2000. Sequential PRE and POST herbicide treatments for goosegrass (Eleusine indica) in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Technol 14:776–782.Google Scholar
Youngner, V. B., Marsh, A. W., Strohman, R. A., Gibeault, V. A., and Spaulding, S. 1981. Water use and turf quality of warm-season and cool-season turfgrasses. Pages 251–257. In Sheard, R. W. Proceedings of the Fourth International Turfgrass Research Conference, Guelph. Ontario, Canada Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, and International Turfgrass Society.Google Scholar