Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:46:34.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) Interference by Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David C. Bridges ,
Barry J. Brecke  and
James C. Barbour
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223-1797
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
Univ. Florida, Agric. Res. Educ. Ctr., Jay, FL 32565
James C. Barbour
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223-1797
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted during 1988 and 1989 in Georgia and Florida to determine the densitydependent effects and critical periods of wild poinsettia interference with peanut. Peanut yield loss ranged from 0 to approximately 50% over the wild poinsettia density range from 0 to 32 plants 9 m−1 peanut row. Predicted peanut yield losses across 2 yr in Georgia were 0, 4, 8, 12, 15, 26, 40, and 54% for season-long wild poinsettia interference at densities of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, and 32 plants 9 m−1 of row, respectively. Across 2 yr in Florida, predicted peanut yield losses were 0, 9, 14, 22, 30, 37, and 41% for wild poinsettia densities of 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 plants 9 m−1 row, respectively. Peanuts had to be maintained poinsettia free for 10 wk after peanut emergence to prevent yield loss. Wild poinsettia that interfered with peanut for more than 2 wk after peanut emergence reduced peanut yield.

Keywords

Wild poinsettia, Euphorbia heterophylla L. # EPHHLpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner’Competitioncritical periods of competitioninterspecific competitionintraspecific competitionEPHHL
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 37 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Banks, P. A. and Pinnel-Alison, C. L. 1988. Wild poinsettia control systems in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:63.Google Scholar
2. Bannon, J. S., Baker, J. B., Harger, T. R., and Rogers, R. L. 1976. Weed Watch. Weeds Today 8:1–12.Google Scholar
3. Bannon, J. S., Baker, J. B., and Rogers, R. L. 1978. Germination of wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla). Weed Sci. 26:221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Brown, S. M. 1990. Peanut weed control. Page 71 in Brown, E. A., ed. 1990 Georgia Pest Control Handbook. Univ. Georgia Coop. Ext. Serv., Athens, GA.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Hauser, E. W., Ethredge, W. J., and Cecil, S. R. 1976. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts II. Effects of cultivation, weeds, and SADH. Weed Sci. 24:29–39.Google Scholar
6. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Harger, T. R. and Nester, P. R. 1980. Wild poinsettia: A major soybean weed. Louisiana Agric. 23:4–5,7.Google Scholar
8. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance or competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., Nichols, R. L., and Patterson, R. M. 1982. Effects of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod on peanut yield. Weed Sci. 30:602–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Effect of weed density. Pages 59–61 in Deutsch, A. E., ed. Weed-Crop Competition, A Review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar