Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:06:55.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lanceleaf Sage (Salvia reflexa) Interference in Sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis C. Odero ,
Abdel O. Mesbah ,
Stephen D. Miller  and
Andrew R. Kniss
Dennis C. Odero*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Abdel O. Mesbah
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Andrew R. Kniss
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Powell, WY, in 2006 and 2007 to determine the influence of season-long interference of various lanceleaf sage densities and durations of interference on sugarbeet. The rectangular hyperbola model with the asymptote (A) constrained to 100% maximum yield loss characterized the relationship between lanceleaf sage density and sugarbeet yield loss. The estimated parameter I (yield loss per unit weed density as density approaches zero) was 3% for both root and sucrose yield loss. Increasing duration of lanceleaf sage interference had a negative effect on sugarbeet root yield. The critical timing of weed removal to avoid 5 and 10% root yield loss was 37 and 52 d after sugarbeet emergence, respectively. Lanceleaf sage interference did not affect percentage of sucrose content. These results indicate that lanceleaf sage is not as competitive as other weeds but that appropriate control measures should be undertaken to minimize sugarbeet yield loss from interference.

Se llevaron al cabo estudios de campo en 2006 y 2007 en Powell, WY. para determinar la influencia de la interferencia a lo largo de la temporada de varias densidades de Salvia reflexa y la duración de la interferencia en la remolacha azucarera (Beta vulgaris L.). El modelo de hipérbola rectangular con la asíntota(A) restringida al 100% máximo de pérdida de rendimiento caracterizó la relación entre la densidad de Salvia reflexa y la pérdida del rendimiento de la remolacha azucarera. El parámetro estimado I (pérdida del rendimiento por unidad de densidad de la maleza conforme la densidad se acerca a cero) fue 3% tanto para la pérdida de la raíz como la pérdida de la producción de sucrosa. El incremento en la duración de la interferencia de la Salvia reflexa tuvo un efecto negativo en el rendimiento de la raíz de Beta vulgaris L El tiempo crítico de remoción de maleza para evitar entre el 5 y 10% de pérdida del rendimiento de la raíz fue a los 37 y 52 días después de la emergencia de la remolacha azucarera, respectivamente. La interferencia de Salvia reflexa no afectó el porcentaje del contenido de sucrosa. Estos resultados indican que la Salvia reflexa no es tan competitiva como otras malezas, pero deben realizarse medidas de control apropiadas para minimizar la pérdida del rendimiento de la remolacha azucarera a partir de la interferencia.

Keywords

Lanceleaf sage, Salvia reflexa Hornem. SALREsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.Competitiontiming of removalweed densityrectangular hyperbolic model
Type
Weed Biology and Competition
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 557 - 561
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

Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Tropic croton interference in cotton. Weed Sci. 49:184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. 1971. Salvia reflexa new to Tennessee. Castanea 36:77–79.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freebairn, R. D. and Strang, J. 1974. Mintweed in perspective. Agric. Gaz. New South Wales 85:26–28.Google Scholar
Holm, L. C., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York: J. Wiley. 605 p.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, J. V. and Speak, D. 1979. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. II. Examination of specialized leaf structures. Weed Res. 19:359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:754–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1995. Wild mustard (Brassica kaber) and wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.). Weed Technol. 9:49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milford, G. F. J. 1973. The growth and development of the storage root of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 75:427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, E. S., Wiese, A. F., Crutchfield, D. E., Chenault, E. W., and Lavake, D. 1985. The effects of temperature and rainfall on emergence and growth of eight weeds. Weed Sci. 33:165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2009. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 23:581–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2010. Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 24:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. 1991. Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) interference in canola (Brassica campestris). Weed Sci. 39:397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S. E., Benjamin, L. R., and Watkinson, A. R. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Ann. Bot. 92:741–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statist. Software 12:1–22.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 29:128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:514–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Lauridson, T. C. 1985. Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 33:518–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. Pages 485–519. In Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. and Wilcockson, S. J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83:331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Combellak, T. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Coffin, M. J., and Landholt, L. M. 2003. Weeds of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Google Scholar
[WASS]. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 2009. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2009. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wyoming/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/bulletin2009.pdf. Accessed: August 30, 2009.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerakoon, W. L. 1981. Studies on autecology of Salvia reflexa Hornem. (mintweed) with special reference to weed management. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 47:218.Google Scholar
Weerakoon, W. L. and Lovett, J. V. 1986a. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. III. Factors controlling germination. Weed Res. 26:269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerakoon, W. L. and Lovett, J. V. 1986b. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. IV. Effects of watering frequency, drought and nutrient supply on growth and development. Weed Res. 26:277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerakoon, W. L. and Lovett, J. V. 1986c. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. V. Competition from crop and pasture species. Weed Res. 26:283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar