Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:21:57.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seedling Growth and Interference of Diffuse Knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Larry Larson and
Gary Kiemnec
Larry Larson*
Affiliation:
Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Gary Kiemnec
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: llarson@eou.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth and growth rate characteristics of diffuse knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass seedlings were evaluated under two temperature regimes, 10 and 16 C, and two moisture regimes, − 0.01 and − 0.03 MPa, in an environmental chamber. Intra- and interspecific interference were evaluated at 10 C and at either − 0.01 or − 0.03 MPa. Root–leaf ratios for bluebunch wheatgrass were greater than for diffuse knapweed at − 0.01 MPa. Under moist conditions, root penetration was greater for diffuse knapweed than for bluebunch wheatgrass roots; penetration was equal in warm or dry conditions. Wheatgrass root length was greater than knapweed length under dry conditions. Intraspecific interference was greater than interspecific interference for both species. Leaf area data and root–leaf ratios suggest that diffuse knapweed is the faster-growing species under moist conditions.

Keywords

Bluebunch wheatgrass, Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Scribn. & Smithdiffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa Lam. #3 CENDICompetitiongrowth rate

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2003, pp. 79 - 83
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

Berube, D. E. and Myers, J. H. 1982. Suppression of knapweed invasion by crested wheat grass in the dry interior on British Columbia. J. Range Manag. 35: 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic. pp 110–150.Google Scholar
Hassenyar, A. S. and Wilson, A. M. 1978. Drought tolerance of seminal lateral root apices in crested wheatgrass and Russian wildrye. J. Range Manag. 31: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, C. H., Callihan, R. H., and Sheley, R. L. 1984. Reseeding Intermediate Wheatgrass in Yellow Starthistle-Infested Rangeland. University of Idaho Extension Current Information Series No. 634. pp. 42–44.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. A. and Aguirre, L. 1991. Effect of water on morphological development in seedlings of three range grasses: root branching patterns. J. Range Manag. 44: 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, L. L. and McInnis, M. L. 1989. Impact of grass seedlings on establishment and density of diffuse knapweed and yellow starthistle. Northwest Sci. 63: 162–166.Google Scholar
Miller, R. F., Seufert, J. M., and Haferkamp, M. R. 1986. The Ecology and Management of Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum): A Review. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 669.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. A., Wilson, A. M., and Goebel, C. J. 1970. Factors influencing broadcast seeding in bunchgrass range. J. Range Manag. 23: 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, A. P. 1943. The germination and early seedling development of twelve range grasses. Am. Soc. Agron. J. 35: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poorter, H. and Remkes, C. 1990. Leaf area ratio and net assimilation rate of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate. Oecologia 83: 553–559.Google ScholarPubMed
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, B. F. Jr. and Roche, C. T. 1999. Diffuse knapweed. In Sheley, R. J. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994a. Observation: comparative life history of cheatgrass and yellow starthistle. J. Range Manag. 47: 450–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994b. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. J. Range Manag. 47: 470–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1996. Emergence date effects on resource partitioning between diffuse knapweed seedlings. J. Range Manag. 49: 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Johnson, D. E. 1993. Germination and root dynamics of range weeds and forage species. Weed Technol. 7: 234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Olson, B. E., and Larson, L. L. 1997. Effect of weed seed rate and grass defoliation level on diffuse knapweed. J. Range Manag. 25: 364–367.Google 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: 1–11.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W. and Key, C. W. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Sci. 62: 151–160.Google Scholar