Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:14:37.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic and interference threshold densities of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) in potato (Solanum tuberosum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Régis Baziramakenga  and
Gilles D. Leroux
Régis Baziramakenga
Affiliation:
Soils and Crops Development and Research Centre, 2560 Hochelaga Boulevard, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada G1V 2J3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1989 and 1990 at St-Augustin, Quebec, Canada, to determine the economic threshold density of quackgrass in potato. Potato yield losses due to quackgrass interference increased with quackgrass population density. Potato yield ranged from 33 to 73% in 1989, and from 19 to 44% in 1990. The relationship between potato yield losses and quackgrass densities was described by a rectangular hyperbolic function. Dry weight of quackgrass proved to be the best predictor of potato yield loss compared to shoot number. The interference thresholds for 10% potato yield loss amounted to 25 shoots m−2 or 20 g total dry biomass m−2. The economic threshold varied between 0.04 and 2 shoots m−2 or 0.0165 and 1.5 g total dry biomass m−2, depending on the variables considered.

Keywords

Quackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREpotato, Solanum tuberosum L.Interference thresholdcrop yield losseconomic thresholdweed densityAGRRE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 176 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Alström, S. 1990. Fundamentals of weed management in hot climate peasant agriculture. A multidisciplinary study of principles, potentials and practices primarily based on Indian and international weed science literature. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Crop Production Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Science. 271 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, U. L. and McLean, R. A. 1974. Design of Experiments. New York: Marcel-Dekker. 418 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1988. Céréales de printemps—Culture. Sainte-Foy, Province of Quebec: Conseil des Productions végétales du Québec, Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pěcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec. 167 p.Google Scholar
Baziramakenga, R. and Leroux, G. D. 1994. Critical period of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) removal in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 42: 528–533.Google Scholar
Baziramakenga, R., Simard, R. R., and Leroux, G. D. 1995. Determination of organic acids in soil extracts by ion chromatography. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27: 349–356.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C. J. 1984. Compétition entre les graminées et les cultures. Rapport de la Journée d'information sur la malherbologie, 6 mars, St-Hyacinthe, Québec: Conseil des Productions végétales du Québec, pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6: 898–903.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. 2: 13–20.Google Scholar
Cussans, G. W., Cousens, R. D., and Wilson, B. J. 1986. Thresholds for weed control—the concepts and their interpretation. Pages 253–260 in Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium on Economic Weed Control. Wageningen, The Netherlands: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. 1974. Quackgrass control and crop protection with herbicides. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 27: 17–19.Google Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 1981. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control with fall-applied glyphosate and other herbicides. Weed Sci. 29: 382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32: 194–197.Google Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 1986. Quackgrass competition effect on potato yield. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66: 185–187.Google Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 1988. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with fluazifop. Weed Sci. 36: 363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 1991. Effect of haloxyfop on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 5: 72–75.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsoyiamis, A. 1977. Pages 81–91 in Theory of Econometrics. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28: 465–471.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Plotz, L. A., Weavet, S. E., Bos, H. J., Wallinga, J., and Migo, T. 1995. A two parameter model for prediction of crop loss by weed competition from early observations of relative leaf area of the weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126: 329–346.Google Scholar
Leroux, G. D. 1993. Effect of initial quackgrass density on control with glyphosate prior to spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1283–1291.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T 1991. Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) interference in canola (Brassica campestris). Weed Sci. 39: 397–401.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2: 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Combellack, J. P., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29: 117–126.Google Scholar
Tardif, F. J. and Leroux, G. D. 1991. Response of quackgrass biotypes to glyphosate and quazalofop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 803–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Prot. 9: 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heemst, H.D.J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agric. Sysr. 18: 81–93.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1981. Interference in pure and mixed populations of Agrostema githago . J. Appl. Ecol. 18: 967–977.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1986. Factors affecting threshold levels and seed production of jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) in soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr. Weed Res. 26: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, P. A. and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. 24. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57: 905–919.Google Scholar