Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:27:55.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with snap beans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joesph N. Aguyoh and
John B. Masiunas
Joesph N. Aguyoh
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, 1201 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Snap beans are a common processing vegetable whose yield and quality can be reduced when a few weeds emerge with or soon after the crop. The effect of redroot pigweed's emergence time and density on snap bean growth and yield was studied. Redroot pigweed, at four densities, was seeded with snap beans (early) or at the first trifoliate leaf stage (late). In 1998 the yield loss at 8 redroot pigweed plants m−1 row was 42 and 58%, whereas in 1999 it was 39 and 48% for late- and early-planted redroot pigweed, respectively. The effect of redroot pigweed density on snap bean yield loss was predicted with the hyperbolic yield equation. Coefficient A (percent yield loss as weed density approaches infinity), determined from the hyperbolic equation, varied from 47 to 63% and coefficient I (percent yield loss as weed density approaches zero) varied from 10 to 32% depending on the year and time of weed emergence, with the greater values for early-emerging redroot pigweed. Snap bean pod number and biomass were reduced as the density of early-emerging redroot pigweed increased. Regardless of the density, late-emerging redroot pigweed had less effect on snap bean growth and yield than did early-emerging redroot pigweed. The hyperbolic yield loss equation may be useful for growers to predict the effect of redroot pigweed in their fields on snap bean yields.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsnap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Matador’Weed densityemergence timeleaf area indexhyperbolic model

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2003, pp. 202 - 207
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L. and Nielsen, D. C. 1996. Emergence pattern of five weeds in the Central Great Plains. Weed Technol. 10:744–749.Google Scholar
Berti, A. and Sattin, M. 1996. Effect of weed position on yield loss in soybean and a comparison between relative weed cover and other regression models. Weed Res. 36:249–258.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters. Crop Sci. 18:308–310.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985a. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985b. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and statistical comparisons with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretation of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
Dielman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of redroot redroot pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Evanylo, G. K. and Zehnder, G. W. 1989. Common ragweed interference in snap bean at various soil potassium levels. Appl. Agric. Res. 4:101–105.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Eradat-Oskoui, K., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Application of weed seed bank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecol. Appl. 3:74–83.Google Scholar
Ghorbani, R., Seel, W., and Leifert, C. 1999. Effects of environmental factors on germination and emergence of Amaranthus retroflexus . Weed Sci. 47:505–510.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. N. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth and analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Itulya, F. M., Mwaja, V. N., and Masiunas, J. B. 1997. Collard-cowpea intercrop response to nitrogen fertilization, redroot pigweed density, and collard harvest frequency. Hortscience 35:850–853.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in redroot pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992. Optimization of weed management system: the role of ecological models of interplant competition. Weed Technol. 6:462–470.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. N. and Hockmuth, G. J. 1997. Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 382–383.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Huck, M. G. 1992. Tomato and nightshade (Solanum nigrum L. and S. ptycanthum Dun.) effects on soil water content. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 117:730–735.Google Scholar
Mosier, D. G. and Oliver, L. R. 1995. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integruiscula) interference on soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:239–246.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., Lemieux, C., and Leroux, G. D. 1999. Prediction of corn (Zea mays) yield loss from early observations of the relative leaf area and the relative leaf cover of weeds. Weed Sci. 47:297–304.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1993. Flowering patterns, seed production and somatic polymorphism of three weed species. Weed Sci. 41:418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1293–1304.Google Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseoulus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar