Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:05:02.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Phosphorus Fertility on Intra- and Interspecific Interference between Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Spiny Amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James W. Shrefler ,
Donn G. Shilling ,
Joan A. Dusky  and
Barry J. Brecke
James W. Shrefler
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Everglades Res. Ed. Ctr., Univ. Florida, Belle Glade, FL 33430
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
Ag. Res. Ed. Ctr., Univ. Florida, Jay, FL 32565
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the effect of phosphorus (P) fertility on intra- and interspecific competition between lettuce and spiny amaranth for 4 wk after emergence. Total lettuce shoot biomass per pot and weight per plant increased 39 and 44% in response to increased P fertility, respectively. P fertility had no impact on growth of spiny amaranth. Total shoot biomass of spiny amaranth increased with increasing density from four to eight plants, however, lettuce did not. Total shoot biomass of both species increased as density increased from 4 to 16 plants. Spiny amaranth, but not lettuce, weight per plant decreased in response to intraspecific competition. Reciprocal yield analysis showed that spiny amaranth produced 2.4 times more biomass than lettuce when competing intraspecifically and four times more biomass under interspecific competition. Lettuce weight per plant was not affected. Relative yield analysis indicated that spiny amaranth was more competitive than lettuce regardless of P fertility. However, increased P fertility increased competitiveness of lettuce. Relative crowding coefficients indicated that spiny amaranth at the low density with low P fertility was 33 times more competitive than lettuce. Addition of P caused lettuce and spiny amaranth to be equally competitive at the lowest density; however, at the highest density, spiny amaranth was 4 tunes more competitive than lettuce regardless of additional P.

Keywords

Lettuce, Lactuca sativa L.spiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus L. # AMASPIntraspecific competitioninterspecific competitionweed/crop interferenceAMASP
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 574 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reductions from weeds. Weed Technol. 1:199–206.Google Scholar
2. Bhaskar, A. and Vyas, K. G. 1988. Studies on competition between wheat and Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 28:53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Caldwell, M. M., Richards, J. H., Manwaring, J. H., and Eissenstat, D. M. 1987. Rapid shifts in phosphate acquisition show direct competition between neighboring plants. Nature 327:615–616.Google Scholar
4. Connolly, J. 1986. On difficulties with replacement series methodology in mixture experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:125–137.Google Scholar
5. Costigan, P. A. 1984. The effects of placing small amounts of phosphate fertilizer close to the seed on growth and nutrient concentrations of lettuce. Plant and Soil. 79:191–201.Google Scholar
6. De Wit, C. T. 1960. On Competition. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
7. Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., and White, J. M. 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in Florida lettuce production. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 101:367–370.Google Scholar
8. Dusky, J. A. and Shrefler, J. W. 1992. Spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus) competition with lettuce. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:313.Google Scholar
9. Glauninger, J. and Holzner, W. 1982. Interference between weeds and crops. Pages 149–159 in Holzner, W. and Numata, N., eds. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
10. Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concepts and extension of the de Wit analysis to examine effects. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:739–747.Google Scholar
11. Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. II. Nutrient relations in a Nandi Setaria greenleaf Desmodium association with particular reference to potassium. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hoveland, C. S., Buchanan, G. A., and Harris, M. C. 1976. Responses of weeds to soil phosphorus and potassium. Weed Sci. 24:194–201.Google Scholar
13. Lindgren, D. T., Gabelman, W. H., and Gerloff, G. C. 1977. Variability of phosphorus uptake and translocation in Phaseolus vulgaris L. under phosphorus stress. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102:674–677.Google Scholar
14. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
15. Rejamanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, Eliska. 1989. Weed-crop competition: Experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276–284.Google Scholar
16. Roberts, H. A., Hewson, R. T., and Ricketts, M. A. 1977. Weed competition in drilled summer lettuce. Hortic. Res. 17:39–45.Google Scholar
17. Ross, C. W. 1974. Page 66 in Plant Physiology Laboratory Manual. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
18. Sanchez, C. A. and Burdine, H. W. 1988. Relationship between soil-test P and K levels and lettuce yield on Everglades histosols. Proc. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. 47:52–56.Google Scholar
19. SAS Institute Inc. 1987. The ANOVA procedure. Pages 125–154 in SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 edition. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
20. Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Sanchez, C. A., and Colvin, D. L. 1991. Weed interference in crisphead lettuce. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:206.Google Scholar
21. 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
22. Weiner, J. 1980. The effects of plant density, species proportion and potassium-phosphorus fertilization on interference between Trifolium incarnatum and Lolium multiflorum with limited nutrient supply. J. Ecol. 68:969–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Wolf, B. 1982. A comprehensive system of leaf analyses and its use for diagnosing crop nutrient status. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 13:1035–1059.Google Scholar