Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:10:31.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: I. Crop growth and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert F. Norris ,
Clyde L. Elmore ,
Marcel Rejmánek  and
William C. Akey
Clyde L. Elmore
Affiliation:
Weed Science Program, Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Marcel Rejmánek
Affiliation:
Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
William C. Akey
Affiliation:
Stanford Media Works, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine how the spatial arrangement of weed populations influences interspecific competition. We studied the influence of regular, random, and clumped distributions of barnyardgrass on growth and yield of direct-seeded tomato planted at different densities. Increasing aggregation increased intraspecific competition in barnyardgrass. At the same time, interspecific competition experienced by tomato from barnyardgrass decreased. Differences in the amount of shading of the tomato canopy by barnyardgrass contributed to yield loss differences for the various spatial arrangements. Clumped barnyardgrass caused significantly less average shading than barnyardgrass in regular or random arrangements. At a typical planting density of 10 tomato plants m−1 of row, yield losses ranged from 10 to 35% (1993) or 8 to 50% (1994) when competing with a clumped arrangement of barnyardgrass. At the same tomato density, yields were reduced from 20 to 50% (1993) or 11 to 75% (1994) for the regular and random arrangements for the same barnyardgrass densities. Predicted single-season economic threshold densities for barnyardgrass at a typical tomato planting density of 10 plants m−1 would be one barnyardgrass plant per 25, 19, or 15 m of crop row, respectively, for regular, random, and clumped spatial distributions.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L. ‘Peelmech’Interferenceweed suppressionthresholds

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 61 - 68
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

Auld, B. A. and Tisdell, C. A. 1988. Influence of spatial distribution of weeds on crop yield loss. Plant Prot. Quart. 3:81.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Effects of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) on growth, yield, and nutrient status of transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 36:775–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1990. The effect of weed distribution on predictions of yield loss. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:735–742.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in notill soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:258–268.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985a. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985b. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1991. Spatial pattern analysis of weed seeds in the cultivated soil seed bank. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, K. A. 1993. The spatial pattern and area of influence of a plant competitor: a model of their impact on plant populations with implications for competition experiments. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 74:244.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 32–40.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. 1988. Spatial heterogeneity in crop loss assessment models. Phytopath. 78:883–884.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 26, 42, and 60–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1995. A simulation of herbicide use based on weed spatial distribution. Weed Res. 35:197–205.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Wyse-Pester, D. Y. 1998. Economic importance of managing spatially heterogenous weed populations. Weed Technol. 12:7–13.Google Scholar
Marshall, E.J.P. 1988. Field scale estimates of grass weed populations in arable land. Weed Res. 28:191–198.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Young, L. J. 1995. Weed distribution in agricultural fields. Pages 113–124 In Robert, P. and Rust, R. H., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison: Agronomy Society of America.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F., Elmore, C. L., Rejmánek, M., and Akey, W. C. 2001. Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: II. Barnyardgrass growth and seed production. Weed Sci. 49:69–76.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, A. P. and Pararajasingham, S. 1997. The influence of plant spacing on light interception and use in greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.): A Review. Sci. Horti. 69:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmánek, M., Bossard, C. C., Robinson, G. R., and Brown, A. M. 1992. The role of plant aggregation in interspecific competition. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 73:319.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmánkova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analyses. Weed Sci. 37:276–289.Google Scholar
Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Netherlands J. Agricul. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
Stauber, L. G., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Density and spatial competition of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 39:163–168.Google Scholar
Suehiro, K. and Ogawa, H. 1980. Competition between two annual herbs, Atriplex gmelini C.A. Mey. and Chenopodium album L., in mixed cultures irrigated with sea water of various concentrations. Oecologia 45:167–177.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Protect. 9:337–342.Google Scholar
[UC IPM] University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. 1990. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publ. 3274. 104 p.Google Scholar
Van Gessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Garrett, K. A., and Westra, P. 1995. Influence of weed density and distribution on corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Sci. 43:215–218.Google Scholar
Van Groenendael, J. M. 1988. Patchy distribution of weeds and some implications for modeling population dynamics: a short literature review. Weed Res. 8:437–441.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992a. Value of information about weed distribution for improving postemergence control decisions. Crop Protect. 11:547–554.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., Gold, H. J., and Coble, H. D. 1992b. Modeling weed distribution for improved postemergence control decisions. Weed Sci. 40:456–553.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 303 p.Google Scholar