Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:28:34.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Purslane Competition in Table Beets and Snap Beans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jonas Vengris  and
Maria Stacewicz-Sapuncakis
Jonas Vengris
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Massachusetts
Maria Stacewicz-Sapuncakis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competition studies in field trials were conducted between common purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) and table beets (Beta vulgaris L., var. Detroit Red) and between common purslane and snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L., var. Eastern Butter). Common purslane control was most critical during the first 2 weeks after beet and bean emergence. Common purslane control for longer than 2 weeks did not increase beet or bean yields. The longer common purslane was allowed to compete after beet or bean emergence, the more yields were decreased. Common purslane was a stronger competitor in beets than in beans. The faster and taller-growing bean plants provided more competition than did beets. Cultivation between rows until lay-by increased both beet and bean yields.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 4 - 6
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

1. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
3. Gleason, H. A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Vol. 2. Lancaster Press, Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 655 p.Google Scholar
4. Kutschera, L. 1960. Wurzelatlass. DLG-Verlags-GMBH, Frankfurt am Main. 574 p.Google Scholar
5. Staniforth, D. W. and Weber, C. R. 1956. Effects of annual weeds on the growth and yield of soybeans. Agron. J. 48: 467–471.Google Scholar
6. Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Soybean-foxtail competition under varying soil moisture conditions. Agron. J. 50:13–15.Google Scholar
7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1968. Extent and cost of weed control with herbicides and evaluation of important weeds, 1965. 85 p.Google Scholar
8. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Weber, C. R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Competitive relationships in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron. J. 49:440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Zimdahl, R. I. and Fertig, S. N. 1967. Influence of weed competition on sugarbeets. Weeds 15:336–339.Google Scholar