Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:51:28.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Redstem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium) in Sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis C. Odero ,
Abdel O. Mesbah ,
Stephen D. Miller  and
Andrew R. Kniss
Dennis C. Odero*
Affiliation:
Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL 33430
Abdel O. Mesbah
Affiliation:
Powell Research and Extension Center, Powell, WY 82435
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Andrew R. Kniss
Affiliation:
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dcodero@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Redstem filaree is a troublesome weed for sugarbeet growers in northern Wyoming and southern Montana. Field studies were conducted in Powell, WY, in 2006 and 2008 to determine the influence of season-long interference of various redstem filaree densities and the duration of interference on sugarbeet. Root and sucrose yield decreased with increasing redstem filaree density. The rectangular hyperbola model with the asymptote (A) bounded at 100% maximum yield reduction characterized the relationship between redstem filaree density and sugarbeet yield reduction. The estimated parameter I (percent yield reduction per unit weed density as density approaches zero) was 5% for root and sucrose yield reduction. Sugarbeet root yield decreased as the duration of redstem filaree interference increased. The critical timing of redstem filaree removal to avoid 5 and 10% root yield reduction was estimated to be 25 and 32 d after sugarbeet emergence, respectively. Redstem filaree interference did not affect the sucrose content percentage. These results demonstrate that redstem filaree is competitive with sugarbeet and should be managed appropriately to reduce negative effects on yield.

Keywords

Redstem filaree, Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Ait. EROCIsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris LCompetitionweed densityrectangular hyperbolic modelduration of interferencecritical timing of weed removal
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 310 - 313
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

Al-Wahaibi, A. K. and Walker, G. P. 2000. Searching and oviposition behavior of a mymarid egg parasitoid, Anagrus nigriventris on five host plant species of its leafhopper host, Circulifer tenellus . Entomol. Exp. Appl. 96:9–25.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1992. Soil temperature, soil moisture, seed burial depths effects on redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Weed Sci. 40:204–207.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 1988. Erodium cicutarium density and duration of interference effects on yield of wheat, oilseed rape, pea and dry bean. Weed Res. 38:55–62.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 1998. Redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) development and productivity under noncompetitive conditions. Weed Technol. 4:590–594.Google Scholar
Bukun, B. 2004. The critical period for weed control in cotton in Turkey. Weed Sci. 44:404–412.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E. and Clayton, G. W. 2007. Wild oat (Avena fatua) vs. redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) interference in dry pea. Weed Technol. 21:235–240.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. New York Academic Press. 892 p.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:754–759.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1995. Wild mustard (Brassica kaber) and wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.). Weed Technol. 9:49–52.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Stevens, W. B. 2004. Redstem filaree control in sugarbeets with micro-rate herbicide treatments. Crop Manage. DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0826-01-RS. Available at http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/2004/filaree/. Accessed: March 29, 2010.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J. 1973. The growth and development of the storage root of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 75:427–438.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci. 52:802–807.Google Scholar
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2009. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 23:581–585.Google Scholar
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2010a. Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 24:59–63.Google Scholar
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2010b. Lanceleaf sage (Salvia reflexa) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 24:557–561.Google Scholar
Paolini, R., Principi, M., Froud-Williams, R. J., Del Puglia, S., and Biancardi, E. 1999. Competition between sugarbeet and Sinapis arvensis and Chenopodium album, as affected by timing of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Res. 39:425–440.Google Scholar
Park, S. E., Benjamin, L. R., and Watkinson, A. R. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Ann. Bot. 92:741–748.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Spiess, A. N. 2008. qpcR: an R package for sigmoidal model selection in quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Bioinformatics. 24:1549–1551.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statist. Software. 12:1–22.Google Scholar
Seber, G. A. F. and Wild, C. J. 1989. Nonlinear Regression. New York Wiley & Sons. 330 p.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 29:128–133.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:5–8.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:514–519.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. Pages 485–519 in Cooke, D. A., and Scott, R. K., eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Lauridson, T. C. 1985. Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 33:518–520.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. and Wilcockson, S. J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83:331–335.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464–467.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D., Burrill, L. C., Dewey, S. A., Cudney, D. W., Nelson, B. E., Lee, R. D., and Parker, R. 2002. Weeds of the West. Laramie, WY Western Soc. Weed Sci. & Univ. Wyoming Coop. Ext. Serv. Pp. 350–351.Google Scholar