Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:40:46.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Season-Long Interference of Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with Direct-Seeded and Transplanted Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard S. Buker III ,
W. M. Stall ,
S. M. Olson  and
D. G. Schilling
Richard S. Buker III*
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2299
W. M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
S. M. Olson
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, North Florida Research and Education Center, Quincy, FL 32351
D. G. Schilling
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Central Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in the spring of 1997 and 1998 to quantify the effect of season-long yellow nutsedge interference on watermelon yield. The competitive ability of watermelon with yellow nutsedge was compared in two establishment methods (watermelon transplanted and direct seeded). Critical yellow nutsedge densities and the biological threshold (BT) were used to characterize the competitive ability of watermelon. The critical density in both direct-seeded and transplanted watermelons was 2 yellow nutsedge plants/m2. The BT of yellow nutsedge in seeded watermelons was 37 yellow nutsedge plants/m2, whereas the BT in transplanted watermelons was 25 plants/m2. Transplanting watermelons did not improve their competitive ability with yellow nutsedge. Percent yield loss was similar for both establishment methods at the respective yellow nutsedge densities. Over 40% yield loss was incurred with 12 yellow nutsedge plants/m2 for both establishment methods. Furthermore, it was concluded that watermelons are poor competitors with yellow nutsedge.

Keywords

Yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. #3 CYPESwatermelon, Citrullus lanatus LAdditive designcompetitioncrop establishmentBT, biological threshold
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 751 - 754
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

Buker, R. S. 1999. The Effect of Yellow Nutsedge Interference in Watermelon. . University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Elmstrom, G. W. 1985. Influence of seed priming and row covers on early maturity in watermelon. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc 98:281–284.Google Scholar
Hochmuth, G. J. and Maynard, D. N. 1997. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. SP-170. Tampa, FL: Vance. Pp. 137–152.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Schultheis, J. R. 1998. Critical weed free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanquinalis) in transplanted melon. Weed Sci. 46:530–532.Google Scholar
Olson, S. M., Hochmuth, G. J., and Hochmuth, R. C. 1994. Effect of transplanting on earliness and total yield of watermelon. HortTechnology 4:141–143.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Terry, E. R., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Bewick, T. A., and Kostewicz, S. R. 1997. Smooth amaranth (Amaranthus hybridus L.) interference with watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.) and muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) production. Hortscience 32:630–632.Google Scholar
Wallinder, C. J. and Talbert, R. E. 1983. Goosegrass interference with watermelon growth. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 36:158.Google Scholar