Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:06:52.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Smooth Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and Livid Amaranth (Amaranthus lividus) Interference with Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adrian D. Berry ,
William M. Stall ,
B. Rathinasabapathi ,
Gregory E. Macdonald  and
R. Charudattan
Adrian D. Berry*
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
B. Rathinasabapathi
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Gregory E. Macdonald
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
R. Charudattan
Affiliation:
Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine the effect of season-long interference of smooth pigweed or livid amaranth on the shoot dry weight and fruit yield of cucumber. Smooth pigweed or livid amaranth densities as low as 1 to 2 weeds per m2 caused a 10% yield reduction in cucumber. The biological threshold of smooth pigweed or livid amaranth with cucumber is between 6 to 8 weeds per m2. Consequently, weed interference resulted in a reduction in cucumber fruit yield. Smooth pigweed, livid amaranth, and cucumber plant dry weight decreased as weed density increased. Evaluation of smooth pigweed, livid amaranth, and cucumber mean dry weights in interspecific competition studies indicated that cucumber reduced the dry weight of both species of amaranths.

Keywords

Smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus # AMACHlivid amaranth, Amaranthus lividus # AMALIcucumber, Cucumis sativus L.Additive experimentamaranthcucumberweed competitionyield loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 227 - 231
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

Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida Agriculture Statistics. 2001. Vegetable Summary. Orlando, FL: Fla. Agric. Stn. Serv. Pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
Holm, G. L., Doll, J., Holm, E., and Pancho, J. V. 1977. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Holm, G. L., Plucknett, D. G., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. N., Hocmuth, G. J., Vavrina, C. S., Stall, W. M., Kucharek, T. A., Webb, S. E., Taylor, T. G., and Smith, S. A. 2001. Cucurbit production in Florida. in Maynard, D. N. and Olson, S. M., eds. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. Gainesville, FL: Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv. Pp. 51–178.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P. and Stall, W. M. 2002a. Time of removal and population density effects of livid amaranth on bell pepper (Capsicum annum). Hortscience 37:747–748.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P. and Stall, W. M. 2002b. Yield of polyethylene-mulched bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) as affected by time of emergence and population density of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L). Proc. Florida State Soc. 115:200–202.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., DeValerio, J., Charudattan, R., and Stall, W. M. 2002. Influence of Phomopsis amaranthicola on the interference of spleen amaranth (Amaranthus dubius) with pepper (Capsicum frutescens). Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Amer. 42:26.Google Scholar
Radosevich, R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:90–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. W. 1987. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. Essex, England: Longman. Pp. 229.Google Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SWSS] Southern Weed Science Society. 1999. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL: Proc. of South. Weed Sci. Soc.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. 2001. Weed control in cucurbit crops (muskmelon, cucumber, squash, and watermelon). in Stall, W. M., ed. Weed Management in Florida Fruits and Vegetables. Fl. Coop. Ext. Ser., IFAS, University of Florida. HS-190. Pp. 23–27.Google Scholar
Terry, R. E. Jr., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Bewick, T. A., and Kostewitz, S. R. 1997. Smooth amaranth interference with watermelon and muskmelon production. Hortscience 32 (4):630–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tredaway, J. M. and Stall, W. M. 2001. Principles of weed management. in Stall, W. M., ed. Weed Management in Florida Fruits and Vegetables. Fl. Coop. Ext. Ser., IFAS, University of Florida. HS-190. Pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1958. United States Standards for Cucumbers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 38:338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar