Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T09:29:07.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive ability of cowpea genotypes with different growth habit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Guangyao Wang ,
Milton E. McGiffen Jr. ,
Jeff D. Ehlers  and
Edilene C. S. Marchi
Guangyao Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Jeff D. Ehlers
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Edilene C. S. Marchi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Science, University of Lavras, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, 37200-000
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth habit is an important determinant of competitive ability in legume crops. Erect ‘Iron-Clay’ (IC), semi-erect ‘IT89KD-288’ (288), and prostrate ‘UCR 779’ (779) cowpea genotypes were planted with four densities of common sunflower or common purslane to determine which cowpea growth habit is more competitive to these weeds having markedly different statures. Both sunflower and purslane reduced cowpea relative growth rate (RGR) but at different phases of the growing season. Low-growing purslane had an effect in the earlier part of the season, and sunflower decreased cowpea RGR in the middle of growing season. RGR of genotype IC was the least affected and genotype 779 the most reduced by sunflower. Cowpea apparently compensated for early season purslane competition by increasing RGR after purslane flowering, with RGR for the IC genotype increasing the most and 779 increasing the least. All cowpea genotypes caused a similar reduction in sunflower biomass accumulation; but purslane biomass was most reduced by genotype IC and least affected by genotype 288. Erect genotype IC is more competitive due to its taller stature, greater height growth rate, and higher position of maximal leaf area density, despite a lower photosynthetic rate and light use efficiency than the other cowpea genotypes. Our results suggest that erect cowpea growth habit may be generally more competitive with weeds compared to semi-erect or prostrate growth habit.

Keywords

Common purslane, POROLcommon sunflower, HELANcowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. VIGSI‘Iron-Clay’, ‘IT89KD-288’ ‘UCR 779’Cover cropsunflowerpurslaneinterspecific competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 775 - 782
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

Berkowitz, A. 1988. Competition for resources in weed-crop mixtures. Pages 89–119 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. ed. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Burgos, N. R. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Weed control and sweet corn (Zea mays var. rugosa) response in a no-till system with cover crops. Weed Sci 44:355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caamal-Maldonado, J. A., Jimenez-Osornio, J. J., Torres-Barragan, A., and Anaya, A. L. 2001. The use of allelopathic legume cover and mulch species for weed control in cropping systems. Agron. J 93:27–36.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Amer. J. Alter. Agric 7:169–180.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. and Forcella, F. 1993. Crop tolerance to weeds. Pages 100–131 in Callaway, M. B. and Francis, C. A. ed. Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Chiariello, N. R., Mooney, H. A., and Williams, K. 1991. Growth, carbon allocation and cost of plant tissues. Pages 327–334 in Pearcy, R. W., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., and Rundel, P. W. ed. Plant Physiological Ecology: Field Methods and Instrumentation. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G. and Baldwin, K. R. 2000. An evaluation of summer cover crops for use in vegetable production systems in North Carolina. HortSci 35:600–603.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. D., Fery, R. L., and Hall, A. E. 2002. Cowpea breeding in the USA: new varieties and improved germplasm. Pages 62–77 in Fatokun, C. A., Tarawali, S. A., Singh, B. B., Kormawa, P. M., and Tamo, M. ed. Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. D. and Hall, A. E. 1997. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp). Field Crops Res 53:187–204.Google Scholar
Flach, K. W. 1990. Low-input agriculture and soil conservation. J. Soil Water Conserv 45:42–44.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1987. Tolerance of weed competition associated with high leaf area expansion rate in tall fescue. Crop Sci 27:146–147.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E. 2001. Crop developmental responses to temperature, photoperiod, and light quality. Pages 83–87 in Hall, A. E. ed. Crop Response to Environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E., Cisse, N., and Thiaw, S. et al. 2003. Development of cowpea cultivars and germplasm by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP. Field Crops Res 82:103–134.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E. and Frate, C. A. 1996. Blackeye bean production in California. University of California. Division of Agricultural Science Publications 21518.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E., Singh, B. B., and Ehlers, J. D. 1997. Cowpea breeding. Pages 215–274 in Janick, J. ed. Plant Breeding Reviews, Vol. 15. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L., Regnier, E. E., and Cardina, J. 1993. Weed and corn (Zea mays) responses to a hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) cover crop. Weed Technol 7:594–599.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Fuctional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 39:575–584.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, C. M. and McGiffen, M. E. 2000. Cowpea cover crop mulch for weed control in desert pepper production. HortSci 35:196–198.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. R. and Aquino, R. C. 1968. Studies on competition in rice. III. The mechanism of competition among phenotypes. Evolution 22:529–542.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Mechanisms of competition for light. Pages 33–61 in Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. ed. Modeling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK: CAB International and the International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci 44:634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. 1997. An ecophysiological approach to understanding corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci 46:569–574.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Ecophysiological characteristics of four maize hybrids and Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res 39:271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, W. C., Ehlers, J. D., Graves, W., Roberts, P. A., and Samons, J. V. 1998. Use of resistant cover-crop cowpeas in crop rotations to reduce levels of root-knot nematode. Page 114 in Annual Meeting Abstracts. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Forcella, F., Lindstrom, M. J., and Reicosky, D. C. 1997. Covariance of cropping systems and foxtail density as predictors of weed interference. Weed Sci 45:388–396.Google Scholar
Nangju, D. 1978. Effect of plant density, spatial arrangement, and plant type on weed control in cowpea and soybean. Pages 288–299 in Akobundu, I. O. ed. Weeds and Their Control in the Humid and Subhumid Tropics. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
Power, J. F. and Koerner, P. T. 1994. Cover crop production for several planting dates in eastern Nebraska. Agron. J 86:1092–1097.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Comparing parameter estimates from more than one data set. Pages 135–151 in Ratkowsky, D. A. ed. Nonlinear Regression Modeling. New York and Basel: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Remison, S. U. 1978. The performance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) as influenced by weed competition. J. Agric. Sci. Camb 90:523–530.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. A., Matthews, W. C. Jr., and Ehlers, J. D. 2005. Root-knot nematode resistant cowpea cover crops in tomato production systems. Agron. J 97:1626–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. G. 1971. Sunflower phenology—year, variety, and date of planting effects on day and growing degree-day summations. Crop Sci 11:635–638.Google Scholar
Steinmaus, S. J. and Norris, R. F. 2002. Growth analysis and canopy architecture of velvetleaf grown under light conditions representative of irrigated Mediterranean-type agroecosystems. Weed Sci 50:42–53.Google Scholar
Steinmaus, S. J., Prather, T. S., and Holt, J. S. 2000. Estimation of base temperatures for nine weed species. J. Exp. Bot 51/343:275–286.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1996. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Prod. Agric 9:475–479.Google Scholar
Wang, G., Ehlers, J. D., Ogbuchiekwe, E. J., Yang, S., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2004. Competitiveness of erect, semi-erect, and prostrate cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes with sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci 52:97–102.Google Scholar
Wang, K. H., McGovern, R. J., McSorley, R., and Gallaher, R. N. 2004. Cowpea cover crop and solarization for managing root-knot and other plant-parasitic nematodes in herb and vegetable crops. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 63:99–104.Google Scholar
Zalom, F. G., Goodell, P. B., Wilson, L. T., Barnett, W. W., and Bentley, W. J. 1983. Degree-days: The Calculation and Use of Heat Units in Pest Management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Leaflet 21373.Google Scholar