Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T01:10:02.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield Losses in Chickpea with Varying Densities of Dragon Spurge (Euphorbia dracunculoides)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Asif Tanveer ,
Muhammad Mansoor Javaid ,
Muhammad Irfan ,
Abdul Khaliq  and
Muhammad Yaseen
Asif Tanveer*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan
Muhammad Mansoor Javaid
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
Muhammad Irfan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan
Abdul Khaliq
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan
Muhammad Yaseen
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: drasiftanveeuaf@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge of economic threshold level and growth habits of weeds in chickpea is essential to implement timely, effective, and economical weed control treatments. The effect of weed density on growth and yield performance in chickpea using dragon spurge as a test weed was investigated for 2 consecutive yr. Dragon spurge density levels of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 plants m−2 were compared with weed-free plots. Each increment in densities of dragon spurge from 5 to 40 plants m−2 reduced plant height, number of fruits, seeds, and dry weight per plant. Chickpea grain yield losses varied between 1 to 63% with dragon spurge density ranging from 5 to 40 plants m−2. The seed protein content of chickpea was found to be significantly reduced above a weed density of 25 plants m−2. Maximum N, P and K uptake by dragon spurge was 1,520, 1,020, and 7,350 mg m−2, respectively. Thus, dragon spurge should be controlled at densities above 5 plants m−2 to achieve optimum chickpea yield.

Keywords

Chickpea, Cicer arietinum L.Euphorbia dracunculoides Lam.Chickpea yield losseseconomic threshold levelchickpea yield losses
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 522 - 528
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

Adelusi, AA, Odufeko, GT, Makinde, AM (2006) Interference of Euphorbia heterophylla Linn. On the growth and reproductive yield of soybean (Glycine max. Linn.) Merrill. Res J Bot. 1:85–94 Google Scholar
Aziz, A, Tanveer, A, Ali, A, Yasin, M (2009) Density dependent interactions between Cleavers (Galium aparine)and wheat (Triticum aestivum) planted at different times. Pak J Agric Sci. 46:258–265 Google Scholar
Ashraf, MY, Khan, AH, Azmi, AR (1992) Cell membrane stability and its relation with some physiological process in wheat. Acta Agron Hung. 41:183–191 Google Scholar
Chemale, VM, Fleck, NG (1982) Evaluation of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merrill) cultivars in competition with Euphorbia heterophylla L. in three densities and two periods of occurrence. Planta Daninha. 2:36–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann Appl Biol. 107:239–252 Google Scholar
Carvalho, LB, Bianco, S, Guzzo, CD (2010) Interference of Euphorbia heterophylla in the growth and macro nutrient accumulation of soybean. Planta Daninha. 28:33–39 Google Scholar
Dana, N, Shenkoru, T, Tegegne, A (2000) Growth rates and testicular characteristics of Ethiopian high land sheep offered chickpea haulm supplemented with incremental levels of Leucaena leucocephala leaf hay. Livest Prod Sci. 65:209–217 Google Scholar
Farooq, O (2010) Agriculture. Pages 18–23 in Wasti, SE, ed. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2010–2011. Islamabad, Pakistan Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan Google Scholar
Frenda, AS, Ruisi, P, Saia, S, Frangipane, B, Di Miceli, G, Amato, G, Giambalvo, D (2013) The critical period of weed control in faba bean and chickpea in Mediterranean areas. Weed Sci. 61:452–459 Google Scholar
Harger, TR, Nester, PR (1980) Wild poinsettia: a major soybean weed. La Agric. 23:4–7 Google Scholar
[IITA] International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (1977) Annual Report. Ibadan, Nigeria International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. 1000 pGoogle Scholar
Khan, IA, Hassan, G, Daur, I, Khattak, IA (2007) Effect of wild oats (Avena fatua) densities and proportions on yield and yield components of wheat. J Agric Biol Sci. 2:26–31 Google Scholar
Martin, SG, Van Acker, RC, Friesen, LF (2001) Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci. 49:326–333 Google Scholar
Mehriya, ML, Yadav, RS, Jangir RP Poonia, BL (2007) Critical period of crop-weed competition and its effect on nutrients uptake by cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and weeds. Indian J Agric Sci. 77:849–52Google Scholar
Mishra, JS, Singh, VP (2003) Interference of Euphorbia geniculata in soybean–chickpea cropping system. Indian J Weed Sci. 35:225–227 Google Scholar
Mishra, JS, Singh, VP, Yaduraju, NT (2006) Wild onion (Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav.) interference in lentil and chickpea crops and its management through competitive cropping. Weed Biol Manag. 6:151–156 Google Scholar
Olorunmaiye, KS, Ogunfolaji, RT (2002) Effect of density and duration of Euphorbia heterophylla (L) on the performance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) (Walp). Niger Soc Exp Biol J. 2:17–22 Google Scholar
Puntieri, JG, Pyšek, P (1993) The effect of physical support and density on biomass production and size hierarchies of Galium aparine populations. Oikos. 66:279–284 Google Scholar
Radicetti, E, Mancinelli, R, Campiglia, E (2012) Combined effect of genotype and inter-row tillage on yield and weed control of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in a rainfed Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Res. 127:161–169 Google Scholar
Remison, S (1978) The performance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) as influenced by weed competition. J Agric Sci. 90:523–530 Google Scholar
Robinson, RA, Sutherland, WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol. 39:157–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Statistical Analysis Systems (2002) SAS Procedures Guide, Version 9.0. Cary, NC SAS Institute Google Scholar
Sester, M, Delanoy, M, Colbach, N, Darmency, H (2004) Crop and density effects on weed beet growth and reproduction. Weed Res. 44:50–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solh, MB, Pala, M (1990) Weed control in chickpea. Options Mediterr Ser Semin. 9:93–99 Google Scholar
Stoll, P, Prati, D (2001) Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology. 82:319–327 Google Scholar
Steel, RGD, Torrie, JH, Dicky, D (1997) Principles and Procedures of Statistics: Multiple Comparisons. 3rd edn. New York McGraw Hill. Pp 178–198 Google Scholar
Tanveer, A, Malik, MA, Cheema, ZA, Ali, A, Tahir, M (1998) Effect of different levels of weed management on weed growth and grain yield of gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak J Sci. 50:60–62 Google Scholar
Taylor, K (1999) Biological flora of the British Isles, no. 207. Galium aparine L. J Ecol. 87:713–730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiwari, AN, Tiwari, SN, Rathi, JPS, Verma, RN, Tripathi, AK (2001) Crop–weed competition studies in chickpea having Asphodelus tenuifolius dominated weed community under rain fed condition. Indian J Weed Sci. 33:198–199 Google Scholar
Whish, JPM, Sindel, BM, Jessop, R, S Felton, WL (2002) The effect of row spacing and weed density on yield loss of chickpea. Aust J Crop Sci. 53:1335–1340 Google Scholar
Willard, TS, Griffin, JL, Reynolds, DB, Saxton, AM (1994) Interference of Wild Poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) with Soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:679–683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, B (1982) The comprehensive system of leaf analysis and its use for diagnosing crop nutrient status. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 13:1035–1059 Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (2004) Weed–Crop Competition: A review, 2nd edn. Ames, IA Blackwell. 220 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar