Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:54:49.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Wild Poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) with Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Teresa S. Willard ,
James L. Griffin ,
Daniel B. Reynolds  and
Arnold M. Saxton
Teresa S. Willard
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. and Crop Physiol., 302 Life Sci. Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. and Crop Physiol., 302 Life Sci. Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Northeast Res. Stn., St. Joseph, LA 71366
Arnold M. Saxton
Affiliation:
Stat. Compu. Serv., 225 Morgan Hall, Tennessee Agric. Exp. Stn., Knoxville, TN 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field-studies were conducted over two years to determine the area of influence and duration of interference of wild poinsettia in soybean. Soybean canopy width averaged across years was reduced approximately 10% beginning at 6 wk of interference for both the 0- to 10-and 10-to 20-cm distances from the weed. Soybean dry weights decreased from 14 to 38% within 20 cm of the weed for 12 through 18 wk of interference. In 1990, soybean yield within 10 cm of wild poinsettia was similar to distances of 10 to 20 and 20 to 40 cm, but was less than that for distances greater than 40 cm from the weed. Weed interference resulted in a 9.5% yield reduction in the 0- to 10-cm distance when compared with the 80-to 100-cm distance. In contrast, yield of soybean in 1991 growing within 10 cm of the weed was less than at greater distances, corresponding to an 18% yield reduction when compared with 80 to 100 cm. Differences in wild poinsettia dry weights when growing alone and when growing within the soybean row occurred after 6 and 8 wk of interference in 1990 and 1991, respectively. In 1991 when rainfall during the growing season was twice that of the previous year, canopy width and dry weight of wild poinsettia growing within the soybean row were reduced an average of 57 and 82%, respectively, compared with weeds growing alone.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.wild poinsettia, Euphorbia heterophylla L. ♯ EPHHLArea of influenceduration of interferenceweed competitionEPHHL
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 679 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1986. Area of influence of selected broadleaf weeds in Texas cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:394.Google Scholar
2. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5:263–269.Google Scholar
3. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5:270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Chemale, V. M. and Fleck, N. G. 1982. Evaluation of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) cultivars in competition with Euphorbia heterophylla L. in three densities and two periods of occurrence. Planta Daninha 2:36–45.Google Scholar
5. Gunsolus, J. L. 1986. Reciprocal interference effects between weeds and soybeans (Glycine max) measured by area of influence methodology. Diss. Abstr. 47(2):439.Google Scholar
6. Harger, T. R. and Nester, P. R. 1980. Wild poinsettia: a major soybean weed. Louisiana Agric. 23:4,5,7.Google Scholar
7. Henry, W. T. and Bauman, T. T. 1991. Interference between soybean (Glycine max) and jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) in Indiana. Weed Technol. 5:759–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Holm, L., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 155.Google Scholar
9. Hutchinson, J. and Dalziel, J. M. 1954. Flora of West Tropical Africa. Vol. I. Part 1. Crown Agents, London. 828 p.Google Scholar
10. Mercer, K. L., Pawlak, J. A., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., Riffle, M. S., and McNew, R. W. 1990. Distance-of-influence of devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2:398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Oliver, L. R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1986. Weed competition and economic threshold. p. 71–97 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
14. Perry, K. M. 1987. Factors affecting sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.) competition in Florida-grown soybeans. Diss. Abstr. 48:2149.Google Scholar
15. Sanders, D. 1989. Weed Survey-Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:413.Google Scholar