Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T02:14:21.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phosphorus Application Influences the Critical Period of Weed Control in Lettuce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis C. Odero  and
Alan L. Wright
Dennis C. Odero*
Affiliation:
University of Florida Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL 33430
Alan L. Wright
Affiliation:
University of Florida Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL 33430
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dcodero@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2010 and 2011 at Belle Glade, FL, to evaluate the influence of phosphorus (P) applications (98, 196, and 293 kg P ha−1) on the critical period of weed control (CPWC) in lettuce. Natural populations of mixed weed species were allowed to interfere with lettuce in a series of treatments of both increasing duration of weed interference and the duration of weed-free period imposed within 98, 196, and 293 kg P ha−1 levels added to the soil. The beginning and end of the CPWC for each P fertilization level based on a 5% acceptable marketable fresh lettuce yield loss level was determined by fitting log-logistic and Gompertz models to represent the increasing duration of weed interference and the duration of weed-free period, respectively. The CPWC in lettuce was estimated to be 4.6, 3.4, and 2.3 wk at 98, 196, and 293 kg P ha−1, respectively. The beginning of the CPWC was delayed at the highest P fertilization level (293 kg P ha−1), whereas the end of the CPWC was hastened at the same P fertilization level. Our study shows that inadequate levels of P fertilization in lettuce result in the need for more-intensive weed management practices to attain acceptable yields.

Keywords

Lettuce, Lactuca sativa LDuration of interferenceduration of weed-free periodcritical timing of weed removalcritical weed-free periodweed competitionyield loss

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 410 - 414
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

Alt, D. 1987. Influence of P- and K-fertilization on yield of different vegetable species. J. Plant Nutr. 10:1429–1435.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., and White, J. M. 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in Florida lettuce production. Pages 367–370 in Proceedings of the 101st Florida State Horticultural Society. Lake Alfred, FL Citrus Research & Education Center, Florida State Horticultural Society.Google Scholar
Dusky, J. A. 1990. Performance of Pursuit for Weed Control in Leaf Production. Belle Glade, FL Florida University Agricultural Research and Education Center Rep. 7. Pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
Dusky, J. A. and Al-Henaid, J. 1993. Pursuit: advantages and disadvantages in lettuce production. Pages 127–132 in Proceedings of the Second Lettuce Research Workshop. Belle Glade, FL Florida University Agricultural Research and Education Center.Google Scholar
Dusky, J. A. and Stall, W. M. 1995. Weed management practices for lettuce production using imazethapyr. Pages 204–207 in Proceedings of the 108th Florida State Horticultural Society. Lake Alfred, FL Citrus Research & Education Center, Florida State Horticultural Society.Google Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. Z., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankenship, E. E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci. 51:408–417.Google Scholar
Everman, W. J., Clewis, S. B., Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2008. Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 22:63–67.Google Scholar
Hochmuth, G., Hanlon, E., Nagata, R., Snyder, G., and Schueneman, T. 1994. Fertilization recommendations for crisphead lettuce grown on organic soils in Florida. Gainesville, FL Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin SP-153, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WQ/WQ11400.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2012.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
Nagata, R. T., Sanchez, C. A., and Coale, F. J. 1992. Crisphead lettuce cultivar response to fertilizer phosphorus. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 117:721–724.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
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York Springer-Verlag. 530 p.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed June 24, 2012.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Stat. Softw. 12:1–22.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A., Hewson, R. T., and Ricketts, M. A. 1977. Weed competition in drilled summer lettuce. Hortic. Res. 17:39–45.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C. A. and Burdine, H. W. 1988. Relationship between lettuce yields and soil-test P and K levels and lettuce yield on Everglades Histosols. Pages 52–56 in Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. Gainesville, FL SCSSF, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C. A., Swanson, S., and Porter, P. S. 1990. Banding P to improve fertilizer use efficiency of lettuce. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 115:581–584.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 2004a. Mechanisms of interference of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) on lettuce as influenced by phosphorus fertility. Weed Sci. 52:78–82.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 2004b. Phosphorus absorption in lettuce, smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) mixtures. Weed Sci. 52:389–394.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 2004c. Influence of method of phosphorus application on smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) interference in lettuce. Weed Sci. 52:797–801.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., and Gilreath, J. P. 2004d. Effect of phosphorus fertilization on common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) duration of interference in lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Technol. 18:152–156.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994a. Effects of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci. 42:556–560.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Shilling, D. G., Dusky, J. A., and Brecke, B. J. 1994b. Influence of phosphorus fertility on intra- and interspecific interference between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci. 42:574–578.Google Scholar
Smitchger, J. A., Burke, I. C., and Yenish, J. P. 2012. The critical period of weed control in lentil (Lens culinaris) in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Sci. 60:81–85.Google Scholar
Snyder, G. H., Burdine, H. W., Crockett, J. R., Gascho, G. J., Harrison, D. S., Kidder, G., Milshoe, J. W., Myhre, D. L., Pate, F. M., and Shih, S. F. 1978. Water Table Management for Organic Soil Conservation and Crop Production in the Florida Everglades. Gainesville, FL University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 801. Pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9:113–118.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Mer.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and crops. Agron. J. 47:213–216.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Faircloth, W. H., Flanders, J. T., Prostko, E. P., and Grey, T. L. 2007. The critical period of Bengal dayflower (Commelina bengalensis) control in peanut. Weed Sci. 55:359–364.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II. 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci. 54:928–933.Google Scholar
Ye, R., Wright, A. L., and McCray, J. M. 2011. Seasonal changes in nutrient availability in sulfur-amended Everglades soils under sugarcane. J. Plant Nutr. 34:2095–2113.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA Blackwell. 220 p.Google Scholar