Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T13:18:36.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggressivity: Cucumber vs. Amaranth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adrian D. Berry ,
William M. Stall ,
B. Rathinasabapathi ,
Gregory E. Macdonald  and
R. Charudattan
Adrian D. Berry
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
William M. Stall*
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
B. Rathinasabapathi
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Gregory E. Macdonald
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
R. Charudattan
Affiliation:
Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wms@ifas.ufl.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A replacement series study was conducted to describe the aggressivity between cucumber, smooth pigweed, and livid amaranth. Cucumber was three times more competitive than smooth pigweed or livid amaranth, under the conditions of this study. However, there was equal competition and no antagonism between smooth pigweed and livid amaranth. Where cucumbers were planted in mixture with either of the two weeds, the relative yield total values were approximately 10 to 20% higher than the monocultures. Cucumber was a superior competitor when grown in mixture with smooth pigweed or livid amaranth, and the following aggressivity hierarchy exists: cucumber > livid amaranth = smooth pigweed. Results from the additive field study indicated that amaranth dry weights were significantly affected by smooth pigweed and livid amaranth density. Dry weight of amaranth was decreased by 48% at Gainesville and 25% at Live Oak, at 18 plants/m2. Despite differences between the Gainesville and Live Oak results, the dry weight data were similar for both smooth pigweed and livid amaranth at each location.

Keywords

livid amaranth, Amaranthus lividus L. #3 AMALIsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHcucumber, Cucumis sativus L.Weed competitionadditive studyreplacement studyRY, relative yieldRYT, relative yield totalAG, aggressivityDAT, days after transplanting

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 986 - 991
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

Aarssen, L. W. and Epp, G. A. 1990. Neighbor manipulations in natural vegetation: a review. J. Veg. Sci. 1:13–30.Google Scholar
Berry, D. A. 2002. smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and livid amaranth (Amaranthus lividus L.) interference with cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). M.S. thesis. University of Florida Gainesville, FL. 64.Google Scholar
Berry, D. A., Stall, W. M., Rathinasabapathi, B., MacDonald, G. E., and Charudattan, R. 2005. smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and livid amaranth (Amaranthus lividus L.) interference with cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Weed Technol. 20:227–231.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
Florida Agriculture Statistics 2001. Vegetable summary. Orlando, FL Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. 21–23.Google Scholar
Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concepts and extension of the de Wit analysis to examine effects. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:739–747.Google Scholar
Hamilton, N. R. 1994. Replacement and additive designs for plant competition studies. J. Appl. Ecol. 31:599–603.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L. and Buhler, D. D. 2002. Utilizing sorghum as a functional model of crop–weed competition. I. Establishing a competitive hierarchy. Weed Sci. 50:466–472.Google Scholar
Holm, G. L., Doll, J., Holm, E., and Pancho, J. V. 1977. World Weeds: Natural histories and distribution. New York Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ikeorgu, J. E. G. 1990. Glasshouse performance of three leafy 1vegetables grown in mixtures in Nigeria. Scientia Horticulturae 43:181–188.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationship in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:227–243.Google Scholar
Legere, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architechture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. N., Hocmuth, G. J., Vavrina, C. S., Stall, W. M., Kucharek, T. A., Webb, S. E., Taylor, T. G., and Smith, S. A. 2001. Cucurbit Production in Florida. Pages 51–178. in Maynard, D.N., Olsen, S.M. eds. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. and Trenbath, B. R. 1971. A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27:659–671.Google Scholar
McPhee, S. C. and Aarssen, W. L. 2001. The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants: a review and critique of methodoly. Plant Ecol. 152:119–136.Google Scholar
Meekins, J. F. and McCarthy, B. C. 1999. Competitive ability of Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard, brassicaceae), an invasive, nonindigenous forest herb. Int. J. Plant Sci. 160:743–752.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Effects of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Technol. 11:672–676.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P. and Stall, W. M. 2002a. Time removal and population density effects of livid amaranth on bell pepper (Capsicum annum). Hortscience 37:747–748.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P. and Stall, W. M. 2002b. Yield of polyethylene-mulched bell pepper (Capsicum annum) as affected by time of emergence and population density of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.). Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 115:200–202.Google Scholar
Ogg, G. A. Jr, Stephens, R. H., and Gealy, D. R. 1994. Interference between mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula) and pea (Pisum sativum) is affected by form of interference and soil water regime. Weed Sci. 42:579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roos, D. L. 1999. American black nightshade (Solanum americanum Mill.) interference in bell pepper (Capsicum annum L.). Master's thesis. University of Florida Gainesville, FL. 90.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895–905.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Petersen, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268–275.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Competitive interactions of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and nutsedge (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:229–233.Google Scholar
SAS 2000. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Southern Weed Science Society 1999. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Terry, R. E. Jr, Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Bewick, T. A., and Kostewitz, S. R. 1997. Smooth amaranth interference with watermelon and muskmelon production. Hortscience 32/4:630–632.Google Scholar