Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:57:40.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parameterization of the Phenological Development of Select Annual Weeds Under Noncropped Field Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anil Shrestha  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
Kearney Agricultural Center, University of California, 9240 S. Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barnyardgrass, common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, and wild mustard are among the most common weeds in cropping systems throughout North America. Crop and weed competition models that predict phenological development across environments are useful research tools for advancing our knowledge of population dynamics or crop and weed competition. Phenological parameter estimates for such models require verification under field conditions. Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to determine growth and phenological development of these species under noncropped conditions to compare parameters developed previously from controlled environment studies. Weeds were planted on three separate planting dates in each year. Growth and phenological development were recorded. Number of leaves on the mainstem of all weed species, except common lambsquarters, was not affected by planting dates. Rate of leaf appearance described as a function of days after emergence ranged from 0.48 to 0.89, 0.10 to 0.31, 0.33 to 0.65, and 0.24 to 0.29 leaves d−1 for common lambsquarters, barnyardgrass, redroot pigweed, and wild mustard, respectively. When expressed as a function of growing degree days (GDD), rate of leaf appearance for these species ranged from 0.04 to 0.05, 0.01 to 0.02, 0.04 to 0.07, and 0.02 to 0.03 leaves GDD−1, respectively. Planting date had differential effects on the rate of stem elongation and final plant height of each species in the 2 yr. Final plant biomass was also influenced by the time of planting; in general, weeds planted by mid-May had more biomass than those planted later. Parameters developed to describe phenological development under field conditions were comparable to those reported previously from controlled environment studies. We conclude that phenological parameters quantified under controlled environmental studies were comparable to those developed under field conditions for these weed species. Thus, either experimental method can be used to parameterize weed phenological development to initialize crop and weed competition models with reasonable confidence.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREwild mustard, Sinapis arvensis L. SINARWeed biologyphenologymechanistic model
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 446 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Alm, D. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Hesketh, J. D. 1991. Weed phenology. in Hodges, T. ed. Predicting Crop Phenology. 191–218. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Begna, S. H., Dwyer, L. M., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., DiTommaso, A., Zhou, X., Prithiviraj, B., and Smith, D. L. 2002. Decoupling of light intensity effects on the growth and development of C3 and C4 weed species through sucrose supplementation. J. Exp. Bot. 53:1935–1940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhowmik, P. C. 1997. Weed biology: importance to weed management. Weed Sci. 45:349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. and Mayer, D. G. 1988. Representing cumulative germination. The use of the Weibull function and other empirically derived curves. Ann. Bot. 61:127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, S. A., Kleinjan, J., Clay, D. E., Forcella, F., and Batchelor, W. 2005. Growth and fecundity of several weed species in corn and soybean. Agron. J. 97:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J., Stoltenberg, D. E., Binning, L. K., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Phenology of common lambsquarters growth parameters. Weed Sci. 49:177–183.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci. 49:558–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, W., Hunt, T., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Influence of temperature, photoperiod and irradiance on the phenological development of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Sci. 46:555–560.Google Scholar
Fischer, D. W., Harvey, R. G., Bauman, T. T., Phillips, S., Hart, S. E., Johnson, G. A., Kells, J. J., Westra, P., and Lindquist, J. 2004. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference with corn across the northcentral United States. Weed Sci. 52:1034–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed survey in different tillage systems in southern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Holt, J. S. 1995. Using phenology prediction in weed management: a review. Weed Res. 35:461–470.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C., Van Eerd, L. L., Miller, S. D., Owen, M. D. K., Prather, T. S., Shaner, D. L., Singh, M., Vaughn, K. C., and Weller, S. C. 2000. Future research directions for weed science. Weed Technol. 14:647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:345–355.Google Scholar
Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., Rahimian, H., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Effects of photoperiod on the phenological development of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:929–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., Rahimian, H., and Swanton, C. J. 2001a. Effects of photoperiod and temperature on the phenological development of common lambsquarters. Weed Sci. 49:500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., Rajcan, I., Rahimian, H., and Swanton, C. J. 2001b. Effects of photoperiod and temperature on the phenological development of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.). Field Crops Res. 70:75–86.Google Scholar
Kackperska-Palacz, E. A., Putala, E. C., and Vengris, J. 1963. Developmental anatomy of barnyardgrass seedlings. Weeds. 11:311–316.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
Maun, M. A. and Barrett, S. C. H. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds, 77: Echinochloa crus-galli (L.). Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66:739–759.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Swanton, C. J., Weise, S. F., and Tollenaar, M. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading and temperature on rate of leaf appearance in redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Weed Sci. 41:590–593.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1988. Research priorities in weed science. Weed Technol. 2:2–11.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Bastiaans, L., and Sattin, M. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40:49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, G. A. and Bailey, L. G. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds, 8: Sinapis arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium album demography. Weed Sci. 46:65–70.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1996. Morphological and phenological variation in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in California. Weed Sci. 44:804–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1997. Weed Science Society of America weed biology survey. Weed Sci. 45:343–348.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., AghaAlikhani, M., Swanton, C. J., and Tollenaar, M. 2002. Development of redroot pigweed is influenced by light spectral quality and quantity. Crop Sci. 42:1930–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, A. and Fidelibus, M. W. 2005. Grape vine row orientation affects light environment, growth, and development of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 53:802–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T., Kropff, M. J., and de Groot, W. 1989. Competition between maize and Echinochloa crus-galli analysed by a hyperbolic regression model. Ann. Appl. Biol. 115:541–551.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., and Rahimian, H. 2000. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of barnyardgrass. Agron. J. 92:1125–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds, 44: Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Wats. and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1215–1234.Google Scholar