Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Venice Mallow (Hibiscus trionum) Interference in Sugarbeet

  • Dennis C. Odero (a1), Abdel O. Mesbah (a1), Stephen D. Miller (a1) and Andrew R. Kniss (a1)
Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Powell, WY, in 2006 and 2007 to determine the influence of season-long interference of various Venice mallow densities and duration of interference on sugarbeet. Sucrose concentration was not affected by Venice mallow interference. The effect of Venice mallow density on sugarbeet root and sucrose yield loss was described by the rectangular hyperbola model. Root and sucrose yield loss increased as Venice mallow density increased. The estimated asymptote, A (percent yield loss as density approaches infinity) was 61% for both root and sucrose yield loss, and the estimated parameter, I (percent yield loss per unit weed density as density approaches zero) was 6% for both root and sucrose yield loss. Sugarbeet root yield decreased as the duration of Venice mallow interference increased. The critical timing of weed removal to avoid 5 and 10% root yield loss was 30 and 43 d after sugarbeet emergence, respectively. Results show that Venice mallow is competitive with sugarbeet implying that it should be managed appropriately to reduce negative effects on yield and prevent seed bank replenishment and re-infestation in subsequent years.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: odero@uwyo.edu.
References
Hide All
Bukun, B. 2004. The critical period for weed control in cotton in Turkey. Weed Sci 44:404412.
Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci 25:151158.
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Bio 107:239252.
Eaton, B. J., Feltner, K. C., and Russ, O. G. 1973. Venice mallow competition in soybeans. Weed Sci 21:8994.
Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, K. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci 24:224228.
Firehun, Y. and Tamado, T. 2006. Weed flora in the Rift Valley sugarcane plantations of Ethiopia as influenced by soil types and agronomic practices. Weed Bio. Mgt 6:139150.
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. New York: Academic. 892.
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 50:773786.
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.
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 8:754759.
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 9:4952.
Milford, G. F. J. 1973. The growth and development of the storage root of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Bio 75:427438.
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52:802807.
Park, S. E., Benjamin, L. R., and Watkinson, A. R. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Ann. Bot 92:741748.
R Development Core Team 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statist. Software. 12 (5):
SAS Institute Inc 2007. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Statistics. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 29:128133.
Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 31:58.
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 30:514519.
Schweizer, E. E. and Lauridson, T. C. 1985. Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 33:518520.
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. Pages 485519. in Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London: Chapman and Hall.
Scott, R. K. and Wilcockson, S. J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Bio 83:331335.
Stubbendieck, J., Coffin, M. J., and Landholt, L. M. 2003. Weeds of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Dept. Agric. in cooperation with Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 605.
Teo-Sherrell, C. P. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Keaton, M. E. 1996. Fates of weed seeds in soil: a seeded core method of study. J. Appl. Ecol 33:11071113.
Walker, S. R., Taylor, I. N., Osten, V. A., Hoque, Z., and Farquharson, R. J. 2005. A survey of management and economic impact of weeds in dryland cotton cropping systems of subtropical Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 45:7991.
Warner, R. M. and Erwin, J. E. 2001. Variation in floral induction requirements of Hibiscus sp. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 126:262268.
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci 17:464467.
Westra, P., Pearson, C. H., and Ristau, R. 1990. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) in corn (Zea mays) and onions (Allium cepa). Weed Technol 4:500504.
Westra, P., Pearson, C. H., Ristau, R., and Schweissing, F. 1996. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) seed production and persistence in soil in Colorado. Weed Technol 10:2228.
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Blackwell. 195.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Technology
  • ISSN: 0890-037X
  • EISSN: 1550-2740
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-technology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords