Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T12:14:00.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and Canopy Architecture as Affected by Soybean (Glycine max) Row Width and Density of Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Anne Légère  and
Marvin M. Schreiber
Anne Légère
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907 Res. Agron., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.
Marvin M. Schreiber
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of soybean row width and redroot pigweed density on growth of crop and weed were studied in field trials in 1983, 1984, and Structural relationships within the canopies of soybean and redroot pigweed in relation to row width and weed density were studied in 1984 and 1985 to assess canopy geometry in relation to intra- and interspecific competition. Early in the growing season, soybean biomass was reduced in the presence of both high and low densities of pigweed. Pigweed biomass was also reduced in the presence of soybeans, especially when grown in narrow rows (25 cm). By midseason, pigweed's contribution to total biomass had reached 43% in wide-row (76-cm) stands and 24% in narrow rows. Soybean produced two to four times more leaf area than pigweed during the first half of the growth season. Narrow-row planting favored soybean leaf area production. Soybean LAI values from weedy stands were reduced compared to those from weed-free stands. Pigweed's contribution to total leaf area averaged 29% in wide-row spacing and 15% in narrow rows. Pigweed leaf area was concentrated in the upper strata of the canopy and thus reduced light available to soybean leaves lower in the canopy. Leaf area distribution patterns suggested that soybean and pigweed were competing for light even though soybean had produced more leaf area than pigweed. These relations were consistent from year to year in spite of variable water conditions.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Wells II’ and ‘Miami’redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREWeed competitionweed interferenceleaf area indexGlycine maxAmaranthus retroflexusAMARE

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 84 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the 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. Allen, O. B., Burton, J. M., and Holt, J. D. 1983. Analysis of repeated measurements using polynomial regression. J. Anim. Sci. 57:765–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Beuerlein, J. E. and Pendleton, J. W. 1971. Photosynthetic rates and light saturation curves of individual soybean leaves under field conditions. Crop Sci. 11:217–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Blomquist, R. J. and Kust, C. A. 1971. Translocation pattern of soybean as affected by growth substances and maturity. Crop Sci. 11:390–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C. and Moomaw, R. S. 1977. Control of weeds in narrow-row soybeans. Agron. J. 69:793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Chu, C., Ludford, P. M., Ozbun, J. L., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Effects of temperature and competition on the establishment and growth of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters. Crop Sci. 18:308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Cooper, R. L. 1977. Response of soybean cultivars to narrow rows and planting dates under weed-free conditions. Agron. J. 69:89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Elmore, C. E. and Paul, R. N. 1983. Composite list of C4 weeds. Weed Sci. 31:686–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Haizel, K. A. 1972. The canopy relationship of pure and mixed populations of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), white mustard (Sinapsis alba L.) and wild oats (Avena fatua L.). J. Appl. Ecol. 9:589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hardman, L. L. and Brun, W. A. 1971. Effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment at different developmental stages on growth and yield components of soybean. Crop Sci. 11: 886–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London. 892 pp.Google Scholar
11. Heindl, J. C. and Brun, W. A. 1983. Light and shade effects on abscission and 14C-photoassimilate partitioning among reproductive structures in soybean. Plant Physiol. 73:434–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Heindl, J. C. and Brun, W. A. 1984. Patterns of reproductive abscission, seed yield and yield components in soybean. Crop Sci. 24:542–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Jackson, L. A., Kapusta, G., and Schuttemason, D. J. 1985. Effect of duration and type of natural weed infestation on soybean yield. Agron. J. 77:725–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Kroh, G. C. and Stephenson, S. N. 1981. Effects of diversity and pattern on relative yields of four Michigan first year fallow field plant species. Oecologia 45:366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Mann, J. D. and Jaworski, E. G. 1970. Comparison of stresses which may limit soybean yields. Crop Sci. 10:620–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta-alba or var. robusta-purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Pearcy, R. W., Tumosa, N., and Williams, K. 1981. Relationships between growth, photosynthesis and competitive interactions for a C3 and C4 plant. Oecologia 48:371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Perozzi, R. E. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1978. The response of an early successional community to shortened growing season. Oikos 31: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Purohit, A. N. and Tregunna, E. B. 1974. Carbon dioxide compensation and its association with the photoperiod response of plants. Can. J. Bot. 52:1146–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. W., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J. 76:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Schreiber, M. M. 1967. A technique for studying weed competition in forage legume establishment. Weeds 15:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Shibles, R. M. and Weber, C. R. 1966. Interception of solar radiation and dry matter production by various soybean planting patterns. Crop Sci. 6:55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. The interaction of soybeans (Glycine max) and five weed species in the greenhouse. Weed Sci. 33:669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Singh, M., Peters, D. B., and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Net and spectral radiation in soybean canopies. Agron. J. 60:542–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Siriwardana, G. D. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Competition between barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 32:218–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Taylor, H. M. 1980. Soybean growth and yield as affected by row spacing and by seasonal water supply. Agron. J. 72:543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. M. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:463–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential growth and competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, A. powellii, and A. hybridus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M., and Byth, D. E. 1966. Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58:99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Wilson, J. W. 1960. Influence of spatial arrangement of foliage area on light interception and pasture growth. Proc. 8th Int. Grassland Congr. Pages 275–279.Google Scholar
32. Wright, D. L., Shokes, F. M., and Sprenkel, R. K. 1984. Planting methods and plant population influence on soybeans. Agron. J. 76:911–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar