Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:21:17.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Analysis of Mayweed Chamomile (Anthemis cotula) Interference in Peas (Pisum sativum)

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, Pullman, WA 99164
Randall H. Stephens
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. and Landscape Arch., Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
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

Destructive growth analysis of field replacement series experiments with mayweed chamomile and dry field peas was used to determine the competitive relationship between the two species. Mayweed chamomile produced similar amounts of leaf area and dry weight per plant in a dry year and a wet year. On the other hand, dry field peas produced 20% more leaf area and 100% more dry weight per plant in the wet year compared to the dry year. Height, leaf area, and dry weight of peas reached maximum between bloom and pod-set, and then declined. Height and dry weight of mayweed chamomile increased steadily throughout the growing season. Mayweed chamomile leaf area reached a maximum at the beginning of flower stem elongation. Initially, the relative growth rate of mayweed chamomile was about three times greater than the rate for peas, but by 40 to 48 d after planting, rates were similar for both species. Relative yields and relative crowding coefficients for dry weight showed that peas were 3 to 20 times more aggressive than mayweed chamomile. Results of these experiments show that mayweed chamomile is a weak competitor against peas, but because it continues to grow after peas senesce, it could interfere with crop harvest.

Keywords

Mayweed chamomile, Anthemis cotula L. #3 ANTCOpeas, Pisum sativum L. ‘Alaska 81’Competitionreplacement seriesrelative yieldaggressivityheightleaf areadry weightdogfennelANTCO
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 394 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
2. El-Titi, A. 1988. Relationship between weed density and yield in peas cropped for canning industries. Pages 107–113 in Balkema, A. A., ed. Proc. Weed Control in Vegetable Production Mtg. Suttgart, German Federal Republic.Google Scholar
3. Gealy, D. R., Young, F. L., and Morrow, L. A. 1985. Germination of mayweed (Anthemis cotula L.) achenes and seeds. Weed Sci. 33:69–73.Google 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. Substitutive experiments. Pages 255–267 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lass, L. and Callihan, R. H. 1988. Spring and summer development of mayweed chamomile in association with winter rape. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Pages 286–287.Google Scholar
8. Lawson, H. M. 1982. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the crop. Weed Res. 22:27–38.Google Scholar
9. Lawson, H. M. and Topham, P. B. 1985. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the weeds. Weed Res. 25:221–229.Google Scholar
10. Marx, G. A. and Hagedorn, D. J. 1961. Plant population and weed growth relations in canning peas. Weeds 9:494–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. McCue, A. S. and Minotti, P. L. 1979. Competition between peas and broadleaf weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:106.Google Scholar
12. Meicenheimer, R. D. and Muehlbauer, F. J. 1982. Growth and development stages of Alaska peas. Expt. Agric. 18:17–27.Google Scholar
13. Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
14. Neter, J., Wasserman, W. W., Kutner, M. H., eds. 1985. Residual analysis. Pages 609–615 in Applied Linear Statistical Models. 2nd ed. R. D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
15. Nichols, M. A., Ragan, P., and Floyd, R. M. 1985. Temperature and plant-density 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, England.Google Scholar
16. Pyke, K. A., and Hedley, C. L. 1985. Growth and photosynthesis of different pea phenotypes. Pages 297–305 in Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C., and Dawkins, T.C.K., eds. The Pea Crop. Butterworths, London, England.Google Scholar
17. Smith, A. E. 1987. Increasing importance and control of mayweed chamomile in forage crops. Agron. J. 79:657–660.Google Scholar
18. Wilson, D. R., Jamieson, P. D., Jermyn, W. A., and Hansen, R. 1985. Models of growth and water use of field peas (Pisum sativum L.). Pages 139–151 in Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C., and Dawkins, T.C.K., eds. The Pea Crop, Butterworths, London, England.Google Scholar
19. de Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwkd. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar