Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T14:48:48.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Soil Water Content on Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) Interference in Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Mortensen  and
Harold D. Coble
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Harold D. Coble
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1985 and 1986 to evaluate the stability of reciprocal interference relationships between common cocklebur and soybean under high and low soil moisture conditions. A significant soil moisture differential was established with portable rain exclusion shelters. Well-watered and drought-stressed common cocklebur reduced soybean yield 29 and 12%, respectively. Drought-stressed common cocklebur interfered with soybean over a shorter distance and the magnitude of the effect at a given distance was reduced. The reduced common cocklebur interference in drier soils was attributed to both common cocklebur and soybean growth responses to moisture stress. First, moisture stress caused greater reductions in common cocklebur canopy diameter, stem diameter, node number, and plant height than in soybean. Second, the soybean yield potential was reduced by moisture stress. The reduction in yield potential decreased the effect of the weed interference. Third, soybean canopy development was slowed, and canopy closure that occurred in about 12 weeks in well-watered soybeans never occurred in the moisture-stressed soybeans. This reduced the degree of light interference between both the common cocklebur and soybean and among the soybean plants. The results of this study indicate that the reciprocal interference relationships between common cocklebur and soybean are not stable across soil moisture conditions. The implications of unstable competitive parameters must be considered as threshold models are developed for various field crops.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Centennial’Drought stresssoil moistureeconomic thresholdsarea of influencecompetitive indexweed interferenceXANST
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 76 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Anderson, J. M. and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybean production. Weed Sci. 24:397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1977. Competition threshold levels, and control of cocklebur in soybeans. Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Stn. and Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 83.Google Scholar
3. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. I., and Wax, L.M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:507–513.Google Scholar
5. Boyer, J. S. 1982. Plant productivity and environment. Science 218:433–448.Google Scholar
6. Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1987. Influence of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density and period of competition of cotton yield. Weed Sci. 35:63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Cassel, D. K. 1983. Spatial and temporal variability of soil physical properties following tillage of Norfolk loamy sand. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:196–201.Google Scholar
8. Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1978. Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:556–559.Google Scholar
9. Coble, H. D., Williams, F. M., and Ritter, R. L. 1981. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:339–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Coble, H. D. 1985. The development and implementation of economic thresholds for soybeans. Pages 295–307 in Integrated Pest Management on Major Agricultural Systems. Frisbie, R. E. and Adkisson, P. L., eds. Texas A&M Univ. Google Scholar
11. Coble, H. D. 1987. Using economic thresholds for weeds in soybeans. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 27:94.Google Scholar
12. Cousens, R., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1985. To spray or not to spray: the theory behind the practice. Proc. 1985 Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds. Pages 671–678.Google Scholar
13. Cousens, R., Doyle, C. J., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1986. Modeling the economics of controlling Avena fatua in winter wheat. Pestic. Sci. 17.1–12.Google Scholar
14. Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Submitted to the Confederation of Australian Weed Science Societies, February 1987.Google Scholar
15. Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stages of Soybean Development. CODEN:IWSRBC 80:1–12.Google Scholar
16. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Gifford, R. M., Thorne, J. H., Hitz, W. D., and Giaquinta, R. T. 1982. Crop productivity and photoassimilate partitioning. Science 225:801–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Gunsolus, J. L. 1986. Reciprocal interference effects between weeds and soybeans measured by the area of influence methodology. Ph.D. Thesis. North Carolina State Univ. 67 pp.Google Scholar
19. Hahn, K. 1986. Effect of time of DPX-Y6202 application on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) density on soybean (Glycine max) yield. M. S. Thesis, Univ. Illinois. 60 pp.Google Scholar
20. James, A. R., Oliver, L. R., and Talbert, R. E. 1974. Distance of influence of common cocklebur on soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:340.Google Scholar
21. Marra, M. C. and Carlson, G. A. 1983. An economic threshold model for weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:604–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Niemann, P. 1986. Mehrjahrige anwendung des schadensschellen–prinzeps bei der unkrautbekampfung auf einem landwirtschaftlichen betrieb. Proc. European Weed Res. Soc. Symp. 1986, Economic Weed Control. Pages 385–392.Google Scholar
23. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31:318–323.Google Scholar
24. Pickett, S.T.A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1978. Organization of an assemblage of early successional species on a soil moisture gradient. Ecol. 59:1248–1255.Google Scholar
25. Stern, V. M. 1973. Economic Thresholds. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 18:259–280.Google Scholar
26. Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:199–202.Google Scholar
27. Weaver, S. E. 1986. Factors affecting threshold levels and seed production of jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) in soyabeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Res. 26:215–223.Google Scholar
28. Wiese, A. F. and Vandiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Wilkerson, G. G., Coble, H. D., and Modena, S. A. 1987. A postemergence herbicide decision model for soybeans. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 27:95.Google Scholar
30. Williams, C. S. and Hayes, R. M. 1984. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:498–501.Google Scholar
31. Young, F.L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1983. Effect of irrigation on quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:720–727.Google Scholar
32. Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:226–234.Google Scholar