Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:35:29.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference between Mayweed Chamomile (Anthemis cotula) and Pea (Pisum sativum) is Affected by Form of Interference and Soil Water Regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Alex G. Ogg Jr. ,
Randall H. Stephens  and
David R. Gealy
Alex G. Ogg Jr.
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.
Randall H. Stephens
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. and Landscape Arch., Washington State Univ.
David R. Gealy
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., 165 Johnson Hall, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of root-shoot interference, soil water regimes, and soil nitrogen were evaluated to determine aggressivity for pea relative to mayweed chamomile in the greenhouse using replacement series experiments. Interference between pea and mayweed chamomile occurred mainly below ground, and soil water was more important than soil nitrogen in controlling the outcome of interference. Pea was a stronger competitor than mayweed chamomile under all conditions investigated. Leaf area, root weight, and shoot weight of mayweed chamomile were reduced 55 to 87% by full interference and 27 to 60% by root only interference from pea. Full interference from mayweed chamomile for 53 days after planting released the remaining pea from intraspecific interference and it grew 80% larger and produced 100% more pod weight compared to a pea in monoculture. Low soil water potential (–175 kPa) compared to high water potential (–33 kPa) reduced the height, leaf area, and shoot weight of pea in 1:1 mixtures, but had no effect on mayweed chamomile. Decreasing soil water increased the aggressivity of mayweed chamomile relative to pea. Nitrogen added at 20 mg wk-1 compared to no added nitrogen had no effect on peas, but more than doubled the size of mayweed chamomile in monoculture and in mixtures with pea. Added nitrogen did not increase the aggressivity of mayweed chamomile relative to pea.

Keywords

Mayweed chamomile, Anthemis cotula L. # ANTCOpeas, Pisum sativum L. ‘Alaska 81.’Competitionroot-shoot partitioningaggressivityheightleaf areashoot weightroot weightnitrogenANTCO
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 579 - 585
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. de Wit, C. T. and van den Bergh, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–221.Google Scholar
2. Donald, C. M. 1958. The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9:421–435.Google Scholar
3. Gealy, D. R., Young, F. L., and Morrow, L. A. 1985. Germination of mayweed (Anthemis cotula) achenes and seed. Weed Sci. 33:69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pennsylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:206–212.Google Scholar
5. Harper, J. L. 1977. Mixtures of species. I. Space and proportions. Chapter 8. Pages 237–276 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, N.Y. Google Scholar
6. Kannangara, H. W. and Field, R. J. 1985. Growth of seedling Achillea millefolium L. (yarrow) in association with pea (Pisum sativum L.). Weed Res. 25:355–361.Google Scholar
7. Kay, Q.O.N. 1958. Biological flora of the British Isles. Anthemis cotula L. J. Ecol. 59:623–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Keating, J.D.H., Cooper, P.J.M., and Hughes, G. 1985. The potential of peas as a forage in the dryland cropping rotations of western Asia. Pages 185–191 in Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C., and Dawkins, T.C.K., eds. The Pea Crop. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
9. Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: laboratory methods. Pages 635–662 in Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1, 2nd ed. Agron. Monograph No. 9, Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
10. Martin, M.P.L.D. and Field, R. J. 1984. The nature of competition between perennial ryegrass and white clover. Grass and Forage Sci. 39:247–253.Google Scholar
11. McGilchrist, C. A. and Trenbath, B. R. 1971. A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27:659–671.Google Scholar
12. Murray, G. A., Kephart, K. D., O'Keeffe, L. E., Auld, D. L., and Callihan, R. H. 1987. Dry pea, lentil and chickpea production in Northern Idaho. Univ. of Idaho Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 664. 11 pp.Google Scholar
13. Neter, J., Wasserman, W. W., and Kutner, M. H. 1985. Residual analysis. Pages 609–615 in Applied Linear Statistical Models. 2nd ed. R. D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
14. Nichols, M.A., Pagan, P., and Floyd, R. M. 1985. Temperature and plantdensity studies with vining peas. Pages 173–184 in Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C., and Dawkins, T.C.K., eds. The Pea Crop. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
15. Ogg, A. G. Jr., Stephens, R. H., and Gealy, D. R. 1993. Growth analysis of mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula) interference in peas (Pisum sativum). Weed Sci. 41:394–402.Google Scholar
16. Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. Pages 101–129 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology, Vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
17. Remison, S. U. and Snaydon, R. W. 1980. A comparison of root competition and shoot competition between Dactylis glomerata and Holcus lanatus . Grass Forage Sci. 35:183–187.Google Scholar
18. Snaydon, R. W. 1979. A new technique for studying plant interactions. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:281–286.Google Scholar
19. Snaydon, R. W. and Harris, P. M. 1981. Interactions belowground—The use of nutrients and water. Pages 188–201 in Proc. Int. Workshop on Intercropping. ICRISAT, Jan. 10–13, 1979. Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
20. Squier, S. A. 1986. Photosynthetic productivity and germination responses of mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula L.). M.S. Thesis. Dep. Agron. and Soils, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 99 pp.Google Scholar
21. Wall, D. A., Friesen, G. H., and Bhati, T. K. 1991. Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless field peas. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:473–480.Google Scholar
22. Wiese, A. F. and Vandiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.Google Scholar
23. Wilson, D. R., Jamieson, P. D., Jermyn, W. A., and Hanson, R. 1985. Models of growth and water use of fieldpeas (Pisum sativum). Pages 139–151 in Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C., and Dawkins, T.C.K., eds. The Pea Crop. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar