Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:10:45.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Horak  and
Thomas M. Loughin
Thomas M. Loughin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 2-yr field study was conducted to compare the growth of Amaranthus palmeri, A. rudis, A. retroflexus, and A. albus planted in June and July. Rates of height increase (centimeters per growing degree day) were 0.21 and 0.18 for A. palmeri, 0.16 and 0.11 for A. rudis, 0.12 and 0.09 for A. retroflexus, and 0.08 and 0.09 for A. albus in 1994 and 1995, respectively, when planted in June. A. palmeri had among the highest values for plant volume, dry weight, and leaf area, while A. albus had the lowest. Specific leaf area values (cm2 g−1) ranged from 149 to 261 for A. palmeri, 160 to 205 for A. rudis, 150 to 208 for A. retroflexus, and 127 to 190 for A. albus. Maximum relative growth rates (g g−1 day−1) for any measured period were 0.32 for A. palmeri, 0.31 for A. rudis, 0.30 for A. retroflexus, and 0.26 for A. albus. Recent increases in species range and observed changes in weed community structure may be partially explained by the growth characteristics of A. palmeri and A. rudis. Herbicide rate and timing recommendations for mixed populations of these weeds should be based on A. palmeri because of its high growth rates.

Keywords

Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATA, common waterhempA. palmeri S. Wats. AMAPA, Palmer amaranthA. retroflexus L. AMARE, redroot pigweedA. albus L. AMAAL, tumble pigweedGrowth analysispigweedrelative growth rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 347 - 355
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Monsanato Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63141; [email protected]

References

Literature Cited

Bensch, C. N. and Horak, M. J. 1997. Competition of three Amaranthus species in soybean. Page 148 in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society, Vol. 52. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
[GPFA] Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Pages 179–184 In Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39:575–584.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. 2000. Biology and management of Palmer amaranth: The new weed on the block. Page 21 In Proceedings of the Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmerì) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed identification: A pictorial guide to the common pigweeds of the Great Plains. Publication S80. Manhattan, KS: Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. 12 p.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1999. Estimates of physiological determinants for redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 47:291–296.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modelling crop-weed interactions. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International and Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. 274 p.Google Scholar
Mayo, C.M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J. S., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Pages 278–301 In Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, S. W., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium birsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.Google Scholar
Russelle, M. P., Wilhelm, W. W., Olson, R. A., and Power, J. F. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24:28–32.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1997. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W. and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest: distribution, importance and management. Pages 239–242 in Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference, Vol. 7. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the Southern United States: 1974–1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar