Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:34:33.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) interference and seed production in soybeans and winter wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan Weaver ,
Kerry Cluney ,
Michael Downs  and
Eric Page
Kerry Cluney
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Michael Downs
Affiliation:
Minor Use Pesticide Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada
Eric Page
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prickly lettuce is an annual weed that germinates in both the fall and the spring. It is often found in no-till soybeans and winter wheat in Ontario, Canada, as well as along the edges of fields. Field studies were conducted from 2001 to 2004 to estimate crop yield losses, and to characterize the phenology and seed production of prickly lettuce in relation to time of emergence. Prickly lettuce had a large impact on soybean yield, with losses of 60 to 80% at densities of 50 plants m−2 or more. Prickly lettuce density estimated to cause a 10% soybean yield loss varied from 0.2 plants m−2 in 2002 to 1.2 plants m−2 in 2003 and 2004. In winter wheat, prickly lettuce at densities up to 200 plants m−2 caused no detectable yield loss in this study. Plants that emerged in the fall generally were larger, flowered earlier. and produced more seeds than those emerging in spring, but size and fecundity were strongly density-dependent. The number of flowers produced per plant could be estimated from the height of the main stem. Seed production per plant ranged from 2,200 to 67,000 in soybeans, and up to 87,000 in a noncrop area at the edge of the field. Winter wheat harvest interrupted prickly lettuce flowering, and only about 25 to 30% of the plants present in the wheat crop survived harvest and flowered in untreated stubble. These plants produced less than 4,000 seeds per plant. Postharvest control with glyphosate, mowing, or cultivation prevented prickly lettuce seed production in wheat stubble. This study suggests that prickly lettuce populations could build up quickly in continuous no-till soybeans, but rotation with winter wheat and control of plants at the edge of the field would help to limit population growth.

Keywords

Prickly lettuce, Lactuca serriola L. LACSEsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Emergencefecundityphenologycrop yield loss
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 2006 , pp. 496 - 503
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

Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Seed biology of sulfonylurea-resistant and -susceptible biotypes of prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 6:858–864.Google Scholar
Amor, R. L. 1986a. Incidence and growth of prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) in dryland crops in the Victorian Wimmera. Plant Prot. Q 1:148–151.Google Scholar
Amor, R. L. 1986b. Chemical control of prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) in wheat and chick-peas in the Victorian Wimmera. Plant Prot. Q 1:103–105.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 4:642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci 45:98–101.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. W., Thomas, A. G., Peschken, D. P., Bowes, G. G., and Derksen, D. A. 1991. Effects of summer and winter annual scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata Mérat) interference on spring wheat yield. Can. J. Plant Sci 71:841–850.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. E. 1995. Root architecture in cultivated and wild lettuce (Lactuca spp). Plant Cell Environ 18:885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. and Prince, S. 1981. Influence of germination date on survival and fecundity in wild lettuce Lactuca serriola . Oikos 36:326–330.Google Scholar
Marks, M. K. and Prince, S. D. 1982. Seed physiology and seasonal emergence of wild lettuce Lactuca serriola . Oikos 38:242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, S. D. and Carter, R. N. 1985. The geographical distribution of prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), III: its performance in transplant sites beyond its distribution limit in Britain. J. Ecol 73:49–64.Google Scholar
Prince, S. D. and Marks, M. K. 1982. Induction of flowering in wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola L.) III: vernalization–devernalization cycles in buried seeds. New Phytol 91:661–668.Google Scholar
Prince, S. D., Marks, M. K., and Carter, R. N. 1978. Induction of flowering in wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola L). New Phytol 81:265–277.Google Scholar
Small, J. G. C. and Gutterman, Y. 1992. A comparison of thermo- and skotodormancy in seeds of Lactuca serriola in terms of induction, alleviation, respiration, ethylene and protein synthesis. Plant Growth Regul 11:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Downs, M. P. 2003. The biology of Canadian weeds, 122: Lactuca serriola L. Can. J. Plant Sci 83:619–628.Google Scholar
Werk, K. S. and Ehleringer, J. 1985. Photosynthetic characteristics of Lactuca serriola L. Plant Cell Environ 8:345–350.Google Scholar
Werk, K. S. and Ehleringer, J. 1986. Field water relations of a compass plant, Lactuca serriola . Plant Cell Environ 9:681–683.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P. and Eaton, N. A. 2002. Weed control in dry pea (Pisum sativum) under conventional and no-tillage systems. Weed Technol 16:88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar