Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:10:17.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanisms of interference of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) on lettuce as influenced by phosphorus fertility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bielinski M. Santos ,
Joan A. Dusky ,
William M. Stall ,
Thomas A. Bewick  and
Donn G. Shilling
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110690, Gainesville, FL 32611
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110690, Gainesville, FL 32611
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110690, Gainesville, FL 32611
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 2725 Binion Road, Apopka, FL 32703
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to assess the intensity of smooth pigweed and common purslane aboveground interference (AI) and belowground interference (BI) with lettuce and to determine primary mechanisms of interference of each species as affected by P fertility rates. Lettuce was transplanted in mixtures with either smooth pigweed or common purslane according to four partitioning regimes: no interference, full interference, BI, and AI. Soil used was low in P for optimum lettuce yields, therefore P was added at rates of 0, 0.4, and 0.8 grams of P per liter of soil. Shoot and root biomass and plant height were measured for each species, as well as P tissue content. The data obtained indicated that smooth pigweed interfered with lettuce primarily through light interception by its taller canopy. A secondary mechanism of interference was the absorption of P from the soil through luxury consumption, increasing the P tissue content without enhancing smooth pigweed biomass accumulation. In contrast, common purslane competed aggressively with lettuce for P. Because the weed grew taller than lettuce, light interception was a secondary interference factor.

Keywords

Common purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHlettuce, Lactuca sativa L.Competitioncultural weed controlintegrated weed management

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 78 - 82
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

Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci 34:29–33.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. 1990. Components of resource competition in plant communities. Pages 27–49 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D. eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Groves, R. H. and Williams, J. D. 1975. Growth of skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea L.) as affected by growth of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) and infection by Puccinia chondrilla Bubak and Syd. Aust. J. Agric. Res 26:975–983.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Robicheaux, R. H. 1990. Competition by barley and pea against mustard: effects on resource acquisition, photosynthesis and yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 31:155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J. and Riley, J. P. 1962. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta 27:31–36.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. Pages 101–129 in Duke, S. O. ed. Weed Physiology. Volume. 1. Reproduction and Ecophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1986. Allelopathy. Pages 111–134 in Camper, N. D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. New York: J. Wiley. 589 p.Google Scholar
Salisbury, F. and Ross, C. 1984. Plant Physiology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 540 p.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Influence of smooth pigweed and common purslane densities on lettuce yields as affected by phosphorus fertility. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc 110:315–317.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Phosphorus effects on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Sci 46:307–312.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Effects of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci 42:556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvertown, J. W. 1987. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. Essex, Great: Britain: Longman Scientific and Technical. 229 p.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Monographs in Population Biology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 435 p.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. 1982. A comprehensive system of leaf analyses and its use for diagnosing crop nutrient status. Commun. Soil Sci Plant Anal 13:1035–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar