Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T16:22:33.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Methods for Crop–Weed Competition Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clarence J. Swanton ,
Roger Nkoa  and
Robert E. Blackshaw
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Roger Nkoa
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Robert E. Blackshaw*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, 5403 First Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: robert.blackshaw@agr.gc.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The annual global economic loss caused by weeds has been estimated at more than $100 billion U.S. dollars (Appleby et al. 2000). Additionally, worldwide annual herbicide sales are in the range of U.S. $25 billion (Agrow 2003). In light of these large dollar figures, it becomes clear that a greater understanding of crop—weed interactions is essential in order to develop cost-effective and sustainable weed management practices.

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue SP1: Special Issue: Research Methods in Weed Science , February 2015 , pp. 2 - 11
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons license is included and the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

References

Literature Cited

Agrow, (2003) Agrochemical sales flat in 2002. Agrow: World Crop Protection News. http://ipm.osu.edu/trans/043_141.htm. Accessed November 7, 2012Google Scholar
Akey, WC, Jurik, TW, Dekker, J (1991) A replacement series evaluation of competition between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res 31:63–72Google Scholar
Appleby, AP, Muller, F, Carpy, S (2000) Weed control. Pages 687–707in Muller, F, ed. Agrochemicals. New YorkWileyGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C (1999) Keeping up with the neighbours: phytochrome sensing and other signalling mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 4:97–102Google Scholar
Ballaré, CL, Scopel, AL, Sanchez, RA (1990) Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: an early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science 247:329–332Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE (1993) Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) density and relative time of emergence affects interference in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 41:551–556Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Stobbe, EH, Sturko, ARW (1981) Effect of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and productivity of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 29:212–217Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Schaalje, GB (1993) Density and species proportion effects on interference between redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and round-leaved mallow (Malva pusilla). Weed Sci 41:594–599Google Scholar
Bussler, BH, Maxwell, BD, Puettmann, KJ (1995) Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci 43:586–594Google Scholar
Cardina, J, Regnier, E, Sparrow, D (1995) Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional- and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 43:81–87Google Scholar
Casal, JJ, Sanchez, RA, Deregibus, VA (1987) The effect of light quality on shoot extension growth in three species of grasses. Ann Bot 59:1–7Google Scholar
Conard, SG, Radosevich, SR (1979) Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible and resistant to atrazine. J Appl Ecol 16:171–177Google Scholar
Cousens, R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann Appl Biol 107:239–252Google Scholar
Cousens, R (1991) Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol 5:664–673Google Scholar
Dawson, JH (1970) Time and duration of weed infestation in relation to weed–crop competition. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 23:437–440Google Scholar
Dew, DA (1972) An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can J Plant Sci 52:921–927Google Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Fox, GC, Swanton, CJ (1996) Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:126–132Google Scholar
Dunan, CM, Westra, P, Schweizer, EE, Lybecker, DW, Moore, FD (1995) The concept and application of early economic period threshold: the case of DCPA in onions (Allium cepa). Weed Sci 43:634–639Google Scholar
Gibson, DJ, Connolly, J, Hartnett, DC, Weidenhamer, JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16Google Scholar
Hall, MR, Swanton, CJ, Anderson, GW (1992) The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 40:441–447Google Scholar
Harper, JL (1977) The Population Biology of Plants. London, UKAcademic PressGoogle Scholar
Higgins, SS, Mack, RN (1987) Comparative responses of Achillea millefolium ecotypes to competition and soil type. Oecologia 73:591–597Google Scholar
Jolliffe, PA (2000) The replacement series. J Ecol 88:371–385Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, MJ, Karlen, DL (1986) Light-mediated bioregulation of tillering and photosynthate partitioning in wheat. Physiol Planta 66:159–163Google Scholar
Kira, T, Ogawa, H, Sakazaki, N (1953) Intraspecific competition among higher plants. I. Competition–yield–density interrelationships in regularly dispersed populations. J Inst Polytech, Osaka City Univ, Ser D 4:1–16Google Scholar
Knezevic, SV, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1994) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 42:568–573Google Scholar
Kropff, MJ, Spitters, C. J. T. (1991) A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weed. Weed Res 31:97–105Google Scholar
Lindquist, JL, Rhode, D, Puettmann, KJ, Maxwell, BD (1994) The influence of plant population spatial arrangement on individual plant yield. Ecol Appl 4:518–524Google Scholar
Maxwell, BD, O'Donovan, JT (2007) Understanding weed–crop interactions to manage weed problems. Pages 17–33in Upadhyaya, MK, Blackshaw, RE, eds. Non-Chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. Oxfordshire, UKCAB InternationalGoogle Scholar
Nelder, JA (1962) New kinds of systematic designs for spacing experiments. Biometrics 18:283–307Google Scholar
Nieto, JN, Brondo, MA, Gonzalez, JT (1968) Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest Artic News Summ Sect C 14:159–166Google Scholar
O'Donovan, JT, de St. Remy, EA, O'Sullivan, PA, Dew, DA, Sharma, AK (1985) Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 33:498–503Google Scholar
O'Donovan, JT, Newman, JC, Blackshaw, RE, Harker, KN, Derksen, DA, Thomas, AG (1999) Growth, competitiveness, and seed germination of triallate/difenzoquat-susceptible and -resistant wild oat populations. Can J Plant Sci 79:303–312Google Scholar
Oliver, LR (1988) Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol 2:398–403Google Scholar
Pacala, S, Silander, J (1990) Field tests of neighbourhood population dynamic models of two annual weed species. Ecol Monogr 60:113–134Google Scholar
Page, ER, Tollenaar, M, Lee, EA, Lukens, L, Swanton, CJ (2010) Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop–weed competition. Weed Res 50:281–288Google Scholar
Quail, PH (2002) Phytochrome photosensory signaling networks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 3:85–89Google Scholar
Radosevich, SA (1987) Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol 1:190–198Google Scholar
Radosevich, SA, Holt, J (1984) Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New YorkWileyGoogle Scholar
Rajcan, IR, Swanton, CJ (2001) Understanding maize–weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole-plant. Field Crops Res 71:139–150Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M, Robinson, GR, Rejmánková, E. (1989) Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci 37:276–284Google Scholar
Roush, ML, Radosevich, SR, Wagner, RG, Maxwell, BD, Petersen, TD (1989) A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci 37:268–275Google Scholar
Skinner, RH, Simmons, SR (1993) Modulation of leaf elongation, tiller appearance and tiller senescence in spring barley by far-red light. Plant Cell Environ 16:555–562Google Scholar
Smith, H (2000) Phytochromes and light signal perception by plants: an emerging synthesis. Nature 407:5985–5991Google Scholar
Smith, H, Whitelam, GC (1997) The shade avoidance syndrome: multiple responses mediated by multiple phytochromes. Plant Cell Environ 20:840–844Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. (1983) An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth J Agric Sci 31:1–11Google Scholar
Stoll, P, Weiner, J (2000) A neighbourhood view of interactions among individual plants. Pages 11–27in Dieckmann, U, Law, R, Metz, JAJ, eds. The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity. New YorkCambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Weaver, S, Cowan, P, Van Acker, R, Deen, W, Shresta, A (1999) Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J Crop Prod 2:9–29Google Scholar
Vitousek, PM, Howarth, RW (1991) Nitrogen limitation on land and on sea: how can it occur? Biogeochemistry 13:87–115Google Scholar
Walker, TW, Syers, JK (1976) The fate of phosphorus during pedogenesis. Geoderma 15:1–19Google Scholar
Wang, G, McGiffin, ME Jr., Ehlers, JD (2006) Competition and growth of six cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes, sunflower (Helianthus annus), and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci 54:954–960Google Scholar
Weaver, SE, Tan, CS (1987) Critical periods of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes and its relation to water stress and shading. Can J Plant Sci 67:575–583Google Scholar
Weaver, SE, Ivany, JA (1998) Economic thresholds for wild radish, wild oat, hemp-nettle and corn spurry in spring barley. Can J Plant Sci 78:357–361Google Scholar
Weiner, J (1982) A neighborhood model of annual-plant interference. Ecology 63:1237–1241Google Scholar