Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:54:46.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regrowth of Weed Species after Cutting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christian Andreasen ,
Camilla H. Hansen ,
Charlotte Møller  and
Nina Kjær-Pedersen
Christian Andreasen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, H⊘jbakkegård Allé 5, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
Camilla H. Hansen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, H⊘jbakkegård Allé 5, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
Charlotte Møller
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, H⊘jbakkegård Allé 5, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
Nina Kjær-Pedersen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, H⊘jbakkegård Allé 5, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Catchweed bedstraw, common hempnettle, wild buckwheat, and wild oat are serious competitors to arable crops in many parts of the world where cutting implements may be used to control weeds. After cutting, regrowth may become a problem. In greenhouse experiments, weed species were cut at different stages of development (wild oat had two or three leaves, and the dicot weed species were 10 or 15 cm high) and at different heights aboveground (5 and 8 cm). Three weeks after sowing, biomass was measured and compared with that of uncut plants. Cutting height had a significant effect on the regrowth of all species. Common hempnettle was the most sensitive to cutting height followed by wild oat, wild buckwheat, and catchweed bedstraw. Increasing cutting height from 5 to 8 cm above the soil surface increased biomass production by 100 to 400% for all species. Cutting catchweed bedstraw at 8 cm resulted in larger biomass production than that of uncut plants (about 30%). For this species, weed control by cutting once in the growing season, 8 cm aboveground, may result in increased weed biomass production when compared with no cutting. The stage of development when the plants were cut did not have a significant effect on the regrowth ability of any of the species, probably because the two growth stages were relatively close in time.

Keywords

Catchweed bedstraw, Galium aparine L. #3 GALAPcommon hempnettle, Galeopsis tetrahit L. # GAETEwild buckwheat, Polygonum convolvulus L. # POLCOwild oat, Avena fatua L. # AVAFAAlternative weed controlcompensatory growthmechanical weed controlmowingovercompensationranking weeds
Type
Commentary
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 873 - 879
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

Belsky, A. J. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am. Nat. 127: 870–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R. 1964. An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. 26: 211–246.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. 1987. Defoliation regrowth and dry matter partitioning in the two arid zone grasses, Aristida armata and Thyridolepis michelliana . Aust. J. Agric. Res. 38: 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, R. W. 1974. Consumers as regulators of ecosystems: an alternative to energetics. Ohio J. Sci. 74: 359–369.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1983. Herbivory, the Dynamics of Animal–Plant Interactions. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 437 p.Google Scholar
Dabber, S. 2000. Organic farming and the common agricultural policy: a European perspective. In IFOAM 2000—The World Grow Organic. Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference; Basel, Switzerland. pp. 611–614.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. L. and Milthorpe, F. L. 1965. Carbohydrate reserves in the regrowth of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L). J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 20: 15–19.Google Scholar
Dyer, M. I. 1975. The effect of red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus L.) on biomass production of corn grains (Zea mays L). J. Appl. Ecol. 12: 719–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, M. I., Detling, J. K., Coleman, D. C., and Hilbert, D. W. 1982. The role of herbivores in grassland. In Esters, J. R., Tyrl, R. J., and Brunken, J. N., eds. Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 255–295.Google Scholar
Fogelberg, F. 1998. Physical weed control—Intra-row brush weeding and photo control in carrots (Daucus carota L). Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden. 119 p.Google Scholar
Grant, S. A. A., Barthram, G. T., and Torvell, L. 1981. Components of regrowth in grazed and cut Lolium perenne swards. Grass Forage Sci. 36: 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, D. W., Swift, D. M., Detling, J. K., and Dyer, M. 1981. Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization hypothesis. Oecologia 51: 14–18.Google Scholar
Holm, L. R., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. eds. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press; reprinted 1991, Malabar, FL: Krieger. pp. 105–113, 285–290, 394–400.Google Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. and Steinke, T. D. 1965. Growth of lucerne in response to height and frequency of defoliation. J. Agric. Sci. 64: 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, G. J. 1968. The growth of the lucerne plant after cutting: the effects of cutting at different stages of maturity and at different intensities. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 19: 517–530.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S. 1979a. Grazing as an optimization process: grass–ungulate relationships in Serengeti. Am. Nat. 113: 691–703.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S. 1979b. Grassland–herbivore dynamics. In Sinclair, A.R.E. and Norton-Griffiths, M., eds. Serengeti: Dynamics of an Ecosystem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 82–103.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S. 1983. Compensatory plant growth as a response of herbivory. Oikos 40: 329–336.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. and Ascard, J. 1996. Weed control in organic farming. In Glen, D. M., Greaves, M. P., and Andersen, H. M., eds. Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems. London: J Wiley. pp. 49–67.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. J. 1997. Experiments in Ecology: Their Logical Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 504 p.Google Scholar
Wilman, D. and Acuña, G. H. 1993. Effects of cutting height on the growth of leaves and stolons in perennial ryegrass–white clover swards. J. Agric. Sci. 121: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar