Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:35:58.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utilizing Sorghum as a functional model of crop–weed competition. II. Effects of manipulating emergence time or rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Melinda L. Hoffman ,
Douglas D. Buhler  and
Emilie E. Regnier
Melinda L. Hoffman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest in using crop competitiveness as an integrated weed management tool is increasing. Our objective was to describe traits that could be sources of the competitiveness we previously observed in grain sorghum grown in association with shattercane, which is a common annual weed and a close relative of the crop. Such information could aid in developing management practices for cultivated sorghum to improve its competitiveness with weeds. A bioassay was conducted to compare emergence of the crop and the weed in the greenhouse, and vegetative growth was monitored for 31 d in a within-row competition study. Results described a crop that competed well with the weed and other crop plants and agreed with studies showing that relative time of emergence influenced competitiveness. The mechanism by which grain sorghum emerged before the weed was a by-product of domestication that reduced glumes surrounding the wild-type seeds. This could be shown experimentally by hulling shattercane seeds, which then emerged almost as quickly as the grain sorghum. When planted in the grain sorghum row, shattercane plants from hulled seeds decreased the number of leaves and the root mass of the crop. Similarly, the time between emergence of the crop and emergence of shattercane was lessened by planting shattercane seeds early, and this increased the leaf number of the weed and shoot mass of the crop. It might be possible to increase weed suppression in grain sorghum by using management practices, such as more equidistant crop planting patterns that exploit the competitiveness already present, but which is being lost to interactions among crop plants.

Keywords

Shattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench SORVUsorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘Pioneer 8310’, ‘Pioneer 8771’Crop managementintegrated weed managementplanting pattern
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 473 - 478
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

Burnside, O. C. 1965. Seed and Phenological Studies with Shattercane. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 220. 37 p.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1968. Control of wild cane in soybean. Weed Sci. 16:18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, D. R. and Burnside, O. C. 1981. Use of the recirculating sprayer to control tall weed escapes in crops. Weed Sci. 29:174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, S. 1995. Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Res. 35:241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wet, J.M.J. 1978. Systematics and evolution of Sorghum sect. Sorghum (Gramineae). Am. J. Bot. 65:477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wet, J.M.J. and Harlan, J. R. 1975. Weeds and domesticates: evolution in the man-made habitat. Econ. Bot. 29:99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wet, J.M.J., Harlan, J. R., and Price, E. G. 1976. Variability in Sorghum bicolor . Pages 453–463 In Harlan, J. R., de Wet, J.M.J., and Stemler, A.B.L., eds. Origins of African Plant Domestication. The Hague: Mouton Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exley, D. M. and Snaydon, R. W. 1992. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and emergence date on root and shoot competition between wheat and blackgrass. Weed Res. 32:175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, F. W. 1992. Factors influencing shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed survival. Weed Sci. 40:434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A. and Miles, R. E. 1973. The role of spatial pattern in the competition between crop plants and weeds. A theoretical analysis. Math. Biosci. 18:335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, J. C., Maranville, J. W., and Paparozzi, E. T. 1994. Nitrogen use efficiency among diverse sorghum cultivars. Crop Sci. 34:728–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. 1992. Addressing real weed science needs with innovations. Weed Technol. 6:509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlan, J. R. and de Wet, J.M.J. 1974. Sympatric evolution in sorghum. Genetics 78:473–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harlan, J. R. 1975. Crops and Man. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. pp. 92–94.Google Scholar
Hawton, D. and Drennan, D.S.H. 1980. Studies on competition between Setaria anceps and Eleusine indica . Weed Res. 20:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, M. L., and Buhler, D. D. 2002. Utilizing Sorghum as a functional model of crop-weed competition. I. Establishing a competitive hierarchy. Weed Sci. 50:466–472.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konesky, D. W., Siddiqi, M. Y., Glass, A.D.M., and Hsiao, A. I. 1987. Wild oat and barley interactions: varietal differences in competitiveness in relation to phosphorus supply. Can. J. Bot. 67:3366–3371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maranville, J. W., Clark, R. B., and Ross, W. M. 1980. Nitrogen efficiency in grain sorghum. J. Plant Nutr. 2:577–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.P.L.D. and Field, R. J. 1988. Influence of time of emergence of wild oat on competition with wheat. Weed Res. 28:111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morishita, D. W., Thill, D. C., and Hammel, J. E. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) interference in a greenhouse experiment. Weed Sci. 39:149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pester, T. A., Burnside, O. C., and Orf, J. H. 1998. Increasing crop competitiveness to weeds through crop breeding. J. Crop Prod. 2:59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinby, J. R. and Martin, J. H. 1954. Sorghum improvement. Adv. Agron. 6:305–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, E. E. and Bakelana, K. B. 1995. Crop planting pattern effects on early growth and canopy shape of cultivated and wild oats (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 43:88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Harper, J. L. 1972. Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J. Ecol. 60:77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 edition. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. pp. 549–640.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 233–237.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Ramsel, R. E., Nordquist, P. T., and Schmidt, J. W. 1986. Impact of wheat cultivars on establishment and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agron. J. 78:59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. D. 1972. Characterization of the Dormancy of the Seed of Wild cane (Sorghum bicolor). . University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 81 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild proso millet (Panicum interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39:217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweifel, T. R., Maranville, J. W., Ross, W. M., and Clark, R. B. 1987. Nitrogen fertility and irrigation influence on grain sorghum nitrogen efficiency. Agron. J. 79:419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar