Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T20:05:38.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative time of redroot pigweed emergence affects dry matter partitioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stevan Z. Knezevic,
Richard L. Vanderlip and
Michael J. Horak
Richard L. Vanderlip
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Michael J. Horak
Affiliation:
Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The partitioning coefficient is defined as the proportion of new dry matter partitioned among different plant parts. Partitioning coefficients can be used to model plant dry matter accumulation. In 1994 and 1995, field studies were conducted at two locations near Manhattan, KS, to determine the influence of density and relative time of emergence of redroot pigweed on dry matter partitioning to stem, leaves, and reproductive parts throughout the season. Redroot pigweed was grown with sorghum and in monoculture at densities of 2, 4, and 12 plants m−1 of row each year at each location. Dry matter partitioning during vegetative growth was not influenced by plant density. However, partition coefficients during the reproductive growth stage changed as a linear function of the time of pigweed emergence relative to the sorghum leaf stage. The later the emergence time relative to sorghum leaf stage, the higher the partitioning coefficient values for leaf (PCleaf) and stem (PCstem) and the lower the partitioning coefficient values for reproductive parts (PCrp). The observed differences in partitioning coefficients due to relative emergence time are valuable information to those interested in simulating growth of competing plant species, especially with reference to their seed production.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) MoenchModelingcrop–weed interactionsduration of plant growth

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 5 , October 2001, pp. 617 - 621
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

Charles-Edwards, D. A. 1982. Physiological Determinants of Crop Growth. New York: Academic Press. pp. 13–106.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2:13–20.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretation of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, R. L. 1969. Effect of root/leaf temperature differentials on root/shoot ratios in some pasture grasses and clover. Ann. Bot. 33:561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed in corn. Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S. and Horak, M. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 46:665–672.Google Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, Z. S., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1999. Estimates of physiological determinants for Amaranthus retroflexus . Weed Sci. 47:291–296.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometric Methods. London: MacMillan Press. pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Vossen, F.J.H., Spitters, C.J.T., and de Groot, W. 1984. Competition between a maize crop and a natural population of Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 35:525–528.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992. Systems approach to quantify crop-weed interactions and their application in weed management. Agric. Syst. 40:265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M.J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1992. An eco-physiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar beet. I. Model description and parameterization. Weed Res. 32:437–450.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Willingford, Great Britain: CAB International, and Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. pp. 94–98.Google Scholar
Potter, J. R. and Jones, J. W. 1977. Leaf area partitioning as an important factor in growth. Plant Physiol. 59:10–14.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, W. D., Vanderlip, R. L., Jackson, B. S., and Arkin, G. F. 1989. SORKAM: A Grain Sorghum Crop Growth Model. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES) Computer Software Documentation Series, College Station, TX. 132 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Cary, NC,290 p.Google Scholar