Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T22:58:10.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Interference in Spring Barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jeffery S. Conn  and
Dana L. Thomas
Jeffery S. Conn
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Agric. Exp. Stn.
Dana L. Thomas
Affiliation:
Math. Dep., Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEAL) density on spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Lidal’) was studied in a 2-yr field experiment near Fairbanks, AK. The data were fit to a rectangular hyperbola model. Common lambsquarters densities explained 74 to 75% of the variability in barley yield. The maximum yield loss attributable to common lambsquarters was 23% in 1982 and 36% in 1983.

Keywords

Weed interferenceweed lossesChenopodium albumHordeum vulgareCHEAL.

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 312 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Conn, J. S., and DeLapp, J. A. 1983. Weed species shifts with increasing field age in Alaska. Weed Sci. 31:520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H., and Rincker, C. M. 1982. Weeds in new seedings of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) for seed production: Competition and control. Weed Sci. 30:20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Doersch, R. 1970. The ten worst weeds of field crops: lambsquarters. Crops Soils Mag. 22(4): 14–15.Google Scholar
6. Elberse, W. T., and De Kruyf, H. N. 1979. Competition between Hordeum vulgare L. and Chenopodium album L. with different dates of emergence of Chenopodium album . Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 27:13–26.Google Scholar
7. Lapointe, A. M., Deshcenes, J. M., Gervais, J. P., and Lemieux, C. 1984. Interference du chenopode blanc (Chenopodium album), chez l'avoine et la luzerne: seuils de nuisibilite. Can. J. Bot. 62:2594–2599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Overland, L. 1966. The role of allelopathic substances in the “smother crop” barley. Am. J. Bot. 53:423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Rice, E. L. 1984. Allelopathy. Acaemic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
10. SAS Institute Inc. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
11. Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:5–7.Google Scholar
12. Sibuga, K. P., and Bandeen, J. D. 1978. An evaluation of green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.] and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) competition in corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., p. 66.Google Scholar
13. Welbank, P. J. 1963. A comparison of competitive effects of some common weed species. Ann. Appl. Biol. 51:107–125.Google Scholar