Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:57:17.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Analysis of Three Cruciferous Weeds: Growth, Development, and Competitiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Wall
David A. Wall*
Affiliation:
Weed Sci., Agric. Can., Res. Stn., Unit 100-101 Route 100, Morden, MB, Canada, R6M 1Y5
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild, ball, and dog mustard growth and development were investigated by mathematical growth analysis in a greenhouse experiment. Plant height and total plant biomass over the growth period followed the trend wild mustard > ball mustard > dog mustard. Dog mustard plants had lower leaf areas than either wild or ball mustard. In a replacement series experiment, wild mustard was more competitive than either ball or dog mustard, and ball mustard was more competitive than dog mustard.

Keywords

Ball mustard, Neslia paniculate (L.) Desv. #3 NEAPADog mustard, Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O. E. Schulz # ERWGAWild mustard, Sinapis arvensis L. # SINARWild mustardSinapis arvensis LSINAR; ball mustardNeslia paniculataNEAPA; dog mustardErucastrum gallicumERWGA; growth analysiscompetitionreplacement series

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1995, pp. 75 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. DeWit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versk. Landbk. Onderz. No. 66.8.Google Scholar
2. DeWit, C. T. and VandenBerg, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–221.Google Scholar
3. Donald, . 1963. Competition among crop and pasture plants. Pages 1–114 in Norman, A.G., ed. Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
4. Frankton, C. and Mulligan, G. A. 1977. Mustard Family—Cruciferae. Page 74–107 in Weeds of Canada. Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
5. Hunt, R. 1982. Polynomial Functions. Page 78–120 in Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.Google Scholar
6. Klemow, K. M. and Raynal, D. J. 1983. Population biology of an annual plant in a temporally variable habitat. J. Ecol. 71:691–703.Google Scholar
7. Mulligan, G. A. 1972. Autogamy, allogamy and pollination in some Canadian weeds. Can. J. Bot. 50:1767–1771.Google Scholar
8. Mulligan, G. A. and Bailey, L. G. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 8. Sinapis arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:171–183.Google Scholar
9. Satorre, E. H. and Snaydon, R. W. 1992. A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 32:45–55.Google Scholar
10. Scoggan, H. J. 1957. Cruciferae (Mustard Family). Page 305–327 in Flora of Manitoba. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 140. Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
11. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. Cruciferae (Mustard Family). Page 778–848 in The Flora of Canada: Part 3—Dicotyledoneae (Saururaceae to Violaceae). National Museums of Canada, Publ. Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
12. Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1984. Weed Surveys of Manitoba Cereal and Oilseed Crops, 1978, 1979 and 1981. Weed Survey Series, Publ. 84-1. Agriculture Canada, Regina, SK. 230 pp.Google Scholar
13. Thomas, A. G. and Wise, R. F. 1987. Weed Survey of Saskatchewan Cereal and Oilseed Crops, 1986. Weed Survey Series, Publ. 87-1. Agriculture Canada, Regina, SK. 251 pp.Google Scholar