Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:58:02.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Interference in Pickling Cucumbers (Cucumis sativus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. H. Friesen
G. H. Friesen*
Affiliation:
Weed Sci. and Chem. Section, Agric. Canada Res. Stn, Harrow, Ontario N0R 1G0
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In field experiments during 1975 to 1977 the final yield of cucumbers (Cucumis sativus L. ‘Salty’) was unaffected when a naturally occurring weed infestation remained in the plots for the first 12 days after emergence in 1975 and for the first 24 days in 1976 and 1977, provided the crop was kept weed-free subsequently. If the cucumbers were kept weed-free for the first 12 days after emergence in 1975, 24 days after emergence in 1976, and 36 days after emergence in 1977, there was no loss of yield caused by weeds that emerged later in the season. The critical period of weed interference was therefore between 12 and 36 days after crop emergence. In other experiments, cucumber yields were reduced significantly when only 5% of the weeds were allowed to remain in the plots longer than 24 days after crop emergence. The percentage of various commercial grades, based on cucumber size, was not altered by weed interference and appeared to be dependent on harvesting frequency.

Keywords

Competitioninteractionallelopathyyieldquality

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 1978, pp. 626 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Bell, D. T. and Koeppe, D. E. 1972. Noncompetitive effects of giant foxtail on the growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.Google Scholar
2. Bleasdale, J. K. A. 1960. Studies on plant competition. Pages 133–142 in Harper, J. L., ed. The Biology of Weeds. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
3. Bowden, B. A., and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7:349–359.Google Scholar
4. Burrows, V. D. and Olson, P. J. 1955. Reaction of small grains to various densities of wild mustard and the results obtained after their removal with 2,4-D or by hand. II. Experiments with flax. Can. J. Agric. Sci. 35:193–201.Google Scholar
5. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13:331–334.Google Scholar
6. Muller, W. H., Lorber, P., and Haley, H. 1968. Volatile growth inhibitors produced by Salvia leucophylla: Effect on seedling growth and respiration. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 95:415–522.Google Scholar
7. Muller, W. H., Lorber, P., Haley, B., and Johnson, K. 1969. Volatile growth inhibitors produced by Salvia leucophylla: Effect on oxygen uptake by mitochondrial suspension. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 96:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
9. Ontario Herbicide Committee. 1977. Guide to Chemical Weed Control. Ontario Ministry Agric. and Food. Publ. 75. 104 pp.Google Scholar
10. Phatak, S. C. 1972. Herbicides for pickling cucumbers. Res. Rep. Can. Weed Comm. (East. Sec.) 17:116–117.Google Scholar
11. Pitblado, R. E., Brown, R. H., and Dillon, C. 1974. Herbicides for weed control in cucumbers. Res. Rep. Can. Weed Comm. (East. Sec.) 19:215–216.Google Scholar
12. Statistics Canada. 1977. Fruit and Vegetable Production 45:12–13.Google Scholar
13. William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23:317–323.Google Scholar