Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T06:43:59.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Curtis N. Bensch ,
Michael J. Horak  and
Dallas Peterson
Michael J. Horak
Affiliation:
Monsanto Corporation, St. Louis, MO 63167
Dallas Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at Manhattan and Topeka, KS, to examine the competitive effects of redroot pigweed, Palmer amaranth, and common waterhemp on soybean yield. The experiments were established as a randomized complete block design in a factorial arrangement of three pigweed species, two pigweed planting dates (soybean planting and cotyledon stage), and seven weed densities (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 plants m−1 of row, plus a weed-free control). The effect of weed density on soybean yield loss, pigweed biomass, and pigweed seed production were described using a rectangular hyperbola model. Soybean yield loss varied between locations depending on the weed species, density, and time of emergence. Yield loss increased with weed density for each species and location with the first pigweed emergence time. The maximum soybean yield loss occurred at the first planting and 8 plants m−1 of row density, and was 78.7, 56.2, and 38.0% as determined by the model for Palmer amaranth, common waterhemp, and redroot pigweed, respectively. The second planting of pigweed did not significantly reduce soybean yield. The relative ranking of the pigweed species biomass was Palmer amaranth > common waterhemp > redroot pigweed. Maximum seed production for Palmer amaranth, common waterhemp, and redroot pigweed was 32,300, 51,800, and 9,500 seeds m−2. Palmer amaranth produced a larger quantity of seed than did common waterhemp or redroot pigweed at low weed densities (0.25 to 4 plants m−1 of row). But common waterhemp seed production equaled or surpassed Palmer amaranth at high weed densities.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrAdditive designcompetitionintegrated weed managementinterferenceweed densityyield lossAMAPAAMAREAMATA

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 37 - 43
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reductions from weeds. Weed Technol. 1:199–206.Google Scholar
Battles, B., Hartzler, B., and Buhler, D. 1998. Effect of common waterhemp emergence date in soybeans on growth and competitiveness. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:145–146.Google Scholar
Bradow, J. M. and Connick, W. J. Jr. 1988a. Volatile methyl ketone seed germination inhibitors from Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. residues. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:1617–1631.Google Scholar
Bradow, J. M. and Connick, W. J. Jr. 1988b. Seed germination inhibition by volatile alcohols and other compounds associated with Amaranthus palmeri residues. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:1633–1648.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connick, W. J. Jr., Bradow, J. M., Legendre, M. G., Vail, S. L., and Menges, R. M. 1987. Identification of volatile allelochemicals from Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. J. Chem. Ecol. 13:463–472.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O’Donovan, J. T., and O’Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1985. To spray or not to spray: the theory behind the practice. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 2:671–678.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stages of Soybean Development. Special Rep. 80. Ames, IA: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University. 12 p.Google Scholar
[GPFA] Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to the Common Pigweeds of the Great Plains. Cooperative Extension Service Pub. S80. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. 20 p.Google Scholar
Jones, S. M., Smeda, R. J., Smith, G. S., and Johnson, W. G. 1998. The effect of waterhemp competition on soybean yield. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:146.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. M. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.Google Scholar
Kigel, J. 1994. Development and ecophysiology of Amaranths. Pages 39–73 In Paredes-Lopez, O., ed. Amaranth: Biology, Chemistry, and Technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z. and Horak, M. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 46:665–672.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometric Methods. London: MacMillan. pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)—velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 49:202–208.Google Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:141–147.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1988. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on seedling growth. Weed Sci. 36:325–328.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1997. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Technol. 11:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Wasserman, W. W., and Nachtsheim, C. J. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago: Irwin. pp. 260–273.Google Scholar
Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robustaalba or var. robusta-purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665–674.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. E. 1999. The impact of herbicide resistant weeds in Kansas. Weed Technol. 13:632–635.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 180–193.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 7. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential growth and competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, Amaranthus powellii and Amaranthus hybridus. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:715–724.Google Scholar