Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:16:24.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods to Study Interactions Among Crops and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven R. Radosevich
Steven R. Radosevich*
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Sci. Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of weed and crop competition can be used to predict yield losses from weed presence and to determine optimum levels or periods of weed control. However, competition is a complex phenomenon that is governed by various biological, environmental, and proximity factors. The factors of proximity include plant density, species proportion, and spatial arrangement among individuals. Several experimental methods have been developed that attach different levels of importance to proximity factors. These methods are described, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed. Density, proportion, and arrangement of plants influence the outcome of competition experiments and should be incorporated into studies of crop-weed interference, since differing estimates for the effects of weeds on crop productivity can be obtained, depending upon the experimental method used.

Keywords

Interferenceproximitydensityproportionspatial arrangement
Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 190 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Bleasdale, J.K.A. 1967. Systematic designs for spacing experiments. Exp. Agric. 3:73–85.Google Scholar
2. Conard, S. G., and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible and resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171–177.Google Scholar
3. Cousens, R. C., Peters, B. N., and Marshal, C. J. 1984. Models of yield loss-weed density relationships. 7th Int. Symp. Weed Biol. Ecol. Syst., Paris. p. 367–374.Google Scholar
4. deWit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwkd. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
5. Firbank, L. G., and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503–517.Google Scholar
6. Fischer, R. A., and Miles, R. E. 1973. The role of spatial pattern in the competition between crop plants and weeds. A theoretical analysis. Math. Biosci. 18:335–350.Google Scholar
7. Fonteyn, P. J., and Mahall, B. E. 1981. An experimental analysis of structure in a desert plant community. J. Ecol. 69:883–896.Google Scholar
8. Goldberg, D. E., and Werner, P. A. 1983. Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: A null hypothesis and a field experimental approach. Am. J. Bot. 70(7):1098–1104.Google Scholar
9. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
10. Jolliffe, P. A., Nimjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Mack, R. N., and Harper, J. L. 1977. Interference in dune annuals, spatial patterns and neighborhood effects. J. Ecol. 65:345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nelder, J. A. 1962. New kinds of systematic designs for spacing experiments. Biometrics. 18:283–3007.Google Scholar
13. Radosevich, S. R. 1986. Methods of interference study. In Altier, M. A. and Liebman, M. Z. (eds.), Plant Competition and Other Ecological Approaches to Weed Control in Agriculture. CRC Press Handbook. Boca Raton, FL. (In press).Google Scholar
14. Radosevich, S. R., and Holt, J. 1984. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
15. Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationship between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895–905.Google Scholar
16. Shinozaki, K., and Kira, T. 1956. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. J. Inst. Polytech., Osaka City Univ. 7:35–72.Google Scholar
17. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983a. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
18. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983b. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 2. Marketable yield. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:143–155.Google Scholar
19. Stewart, R. E. 1981. Effects of weeds, trees and shrubs on conifers – a bibliography. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Timber Manage. Res. Google Scholar
20. Trenbath, B. R. 1978. Models and interpretation of mixture experiments. In Wilson, J. R. (ed.). Plant relations in pastures. C.S.I.R. p. 145.Google Scholar
21. Weldon, C. W., and Slausen, W. L. 1986. The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q. Rev. Biol. 61:23–44.Google Scholar
22. Weiner, J. 1982. A neighborhood model of annual-plant interference. Ecology 63:1237–1241.Google Scholar
23. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed Crop Competition: A review. Int. Plant Prot. Cent., Corvallis, OR. 199–206 Google Scholar