Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:17:49.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Shoot Clipping–Soil Disturbance Frequency and Tuber Size on Aboveground and Belowground Growth of Purple and Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and Cyperus esculentus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sanjeev K. Bangarwa ,
Jason K. Norsworthy  and
Edward E. Gbur
Sanjeev K. Bangarwa
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Edward E. Gbur
Affiliation:
Agricultural Statistics Laboratory University of Arkansas, 101 Agricultural Annex Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purple and yellow nutsedges are two of the world's worst weeds, reproducing asexually by rhizomes that can develop into new shoots or tubers. These tubers are the storage organs for carbohydrate reserves that are replenished by growing shoots and exhausted by new shoot, root plus rhizome, and basal bulb production. Based on the biology of both species, we hypothesized that the regenerative potential of purple and yellow nutsedge would decrease, with increasing shoot clipping–soil disturbance (SCSD) frequency and decreasing tuber size. To test this hypothesis, greenhouse experiments were conducted in pots to determine the effect of SCSD frequency and tuber size on aboveground and belowground growth of purple and yellow nutsedges. Five viable tubers of two tuber category sizes (small, 0.40 ± 0.05; and large, 0.80 ± 0.05 g of tuber fresh weight) were subjected to four SCSD frequencies (weekly, biweekly, monthly, and none) for 12 wk. SCSD was performed by clipping the emerged nutsedge shoots followed by manually disturbing the soil. SCSD at biweekly or weekly intervals reduced purple nutsedge proliferation, regardless of initial tuber size. However, monthly SCSD did not suppress purple nutsedge as effectively as weekly or biweekly SCSD, and less proliferation occurred with small tubers than with large tubers. In contrast, yellow nutsedge proliferation was equally reduced with monthly or more-frequent SCSD, regardless of initial tuber size. Even weekly soil disturbance for 12 wk failed to eradicate all small or large tubers in either species. Thus, yellow nutsedge is managed more easily than purple nutsedge with less-frequent tillage or cultivation. However, tillage or cultivation alone during a 12-wk period will not likely eradicate either nutsedge species from infested soil.

Cyperus rotundus y Cyperus esculentus son dos de las peores malezas del mundo, las cuales se reproducen asexualmente por rizomas que pueden desarrollar nuevo tejido aéreo o tubérculos. Estos tubérculos son órganos de almacenaje de reservas de carbohidratos, los cuales son mantenidos por la parte aérea en crecimiento de la planta y son desgastados por la producción de nuevos puntos aéreos, raíces más rizomas y bulbos basales. Basados en la biología de ambas especies, nosotros planteamos la hipótesis de que el potencial regenerativo de C. rotundus y C. esculentus disminuiría, al incrementarse la frecuencia de poda del tejido aéreo y la perturbación del suelo (SCSD) y al disminuirse el tamaño de los tubérculos. Para evaluar esta hipótesis, se realizaron experimentos de invernadero en macetas para determinar el efecto de la frecuencia de SCSD y el tamaño del tubérculo sobre el crecimiento del tejido aéreo y subterráneo de C. rotundus y C. esculentus. Se sometió cinco tubérculos viables de dos categorías de tubérculo según el tamaño (pequeño, 0.40±0.05; y grandes, 0.80±0.05 g tubérculo fresco wt−1) a cuatro frecuencias de SCSD (semanal, bisemanal, mensual y ninguna) durante 12 semanas. SCSD se realizó cortando las hojas de plantas emergidas de C. rotundus y C. esculentus e inmediatamente después perturbando el suelo manualmente. SCSD realizado a intervalos semanales o bisemanales redujo la proliferación de C. rotundus sin importar el tamaño del tubérculo. Sin embargo, SCSD mensual no fue tan efectivo como SCSD semanal o bisemanal, y menos proliferación ocurrió con tubérculos pequeños que con tubérculos grandes. En contraste, la proliferación de C. esculentus fue reducida de la misma forma con SCSD mensuales o a intervalos más frecuentes, sin importar el tamaño del tubérculo. La perturbación semanal del suelo durante 12 semanas no fue suficiente para erradicar todos los tubérculos pequeños o grandes en ninguna de estas especies. De esta forma, con labranza y cultivo menos frecuentes se puede manejar C. esculentus más fácilmente que C. rotundus. Sin embargo, la labranza y el cultivo solos durante un período de 12 semanas probablemente no erradicará ninguna de estas especies en suelos infestados.

Keywords

Purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. CYPROyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESMechanical weed controlnutsedge biologyorganic production systemregenerative potential
Type
Weed Biology and Competition
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 813 - 817
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

Bangarwa, S. K., Norsworthy, J. K., Jha, P., and Malik, M. S. 2008. Purple nutsedge management in an organic production system. Weed Sci. 56 :606–613.Google Scholar
Bendixen, L. E. and Nandihalli, U. B. 1987. Worldwide distribution of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1 :61–65.Google Scholar
Glaze, N. C. 1987. Cultural and mechanical manipulation of Cyperus spp. Weed Technol. 1 :82–83.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972. Effect of frequent clipping on three perennial weeds, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers., and Cyperus rotundus L. Exp. Agric. 8 :225–234.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C., Davis, R. F., and Mullinix, B. G. 2007. An integrated system of summer solarization and fallow tillage for Cyperus esculentus and nematode management in the southeastern coastal plain. Crop Prot. 26 :1660–1666.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1975. Influence of yellow nutsedge competition on furrow-irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 23 :171–175.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Hartwig, E. E. 1965. Effectiveness of preplanting tillage in relation to herbicides in controlling johnsongrass for soybean production. Agron. J. 57 :385–389.Google Scholar
Miles, J. E., Nishimoto, R. K., and Kawabata, O. 1996. Diurnally alternating temperatures stimulate sprouting of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) tubers. Weed Sci. 44 :122–125.Google Scholar
Rao, J. S. 1968. Studies of the development of tubers in nutgrass and their starch content at different depths of soil. Madras Agric. J. 55 :18–23.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Influence of tuber size and shoot removal on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) regrowth. Weed Sci. 45 :681–683.Google Scholar
Siriwardana, G. and Nishimoto, R. K. 1987. Propagules of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in soil. Weed Technol. 1 :217–220.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. 1972. Developmental variation in carbohydrates of purple nutsedge. J. Range Manag. 24 :125–127.Google Scholar
Smith, E. V. and Mayton, E. L. 1938. Nutgrass eradication studies, II: the eradication of nutgrass, Cyperus rotundus L., by certain tillage treatments. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 30 :18–22.Google Scholar
Smith, E. V. and Mayton, E. L. 1942. Nutgrass eradication studies, III: the control of nutgrass, Cyperus rotundus L., on several soil types by tillage. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 34 :151–159.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Sweet, R. D. 1987. Biology and life cycle of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1 :66–73.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Yellow nutsedge shoot emergence and tuber longevity. Weed Sci. 21 :76–81.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Weber, E. J. 1975. Differential cold tolerance, starch, sugar, protein, and lipid of yellow and purple nutsedge tubers. Plant Physiol. 55 :859–863.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Nema, D. P., and Bhan, V. M. 1972. Yellow nutsedge tuber development and seedling development. Weed Sci. 20 :93–97.Google Scholar
Taylorson, R. B. 1967. Season variation in sprouting and available carbohydrate in yellow nutsedge tubers. Weeds 15 :22–24.Google Scholar
Tumbleson, M. E. and Kommedahl, T. 1961. Reproductive potential of Cyperus esculentus by tubers. Weeds 9 :646–653.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Mulch type affects the growth and tuber production of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 53 :834–838.Google Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23 :317–323.Google Scholar