Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Wild Buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) 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 wild buckwheat densities and duration of interference on sugarbeet. Percent sucrose content was not affected by wild buckwheat interference. Root and sucrose yield loss per hectare increased as wild buckwheat density increased. The estimated percent yield loss as wild buckwheat density approaches infinity was 64 and 61% for root and sucrose yield loss, respectively. The estimated percent yield loss per unit weed density at low weed densities was 6% for both root and sucrose yield loss. Greater durations of wild buckwheat interference had a negative effect on sugarbeet root yield. The critical timing of weed removal (CTWR) to avoid 5 and 10% root yield loss was 32 and 48 d after sugarbeet emergence (DAE), respectively. These results show that wild buckwheat is competitive with sugarbeet and should be managed appropriately to forestall any negative effects on sugarbeet root and sucrose yield.

Estudios de campo realizados en Powell, WY en los años 2006 y 2007 fueron dirigidos para determinar la influenza de larga estación de interferencia de varias densidades de polygonum convolvulus y la duración de interferencia en la remolacha azucarera. El contenido de sacarosa no fue afectado por la interferencia de polygonum convolvulus. La raíz y la pérdida de producción de sacarosa por hectárea se incrementaron tanto como la densidad de polygonum convolvulus se incrementó. El porcentaje estimado de pérdida en la producción mientras la densidad de la polygonum convolvulus se acercó al infinito, fue de un 64 y un 61%, para la raíz y la pérdida de la producción de sacarosa respectivamente. El porcentaje estimado de pérdida en la producción por unidad de densidad de baja maleza fue del 6% para ambos, raíz y la pérdida de producción de sacarosa. Un mayor intervalo de interferencia de la polygonum convolvulus tuvo un efecto negativo en la producción de la remolacha azucarera. El tiempo crítico de remoción de maleza (CTWR) para evitar el 5 y el 10% de pérdida en la producción de la remolacha azucarera fue de 32 y 48 días después de la emergencia de ésta. Estos resultados muestran que la polygonum convolvulus es competitiva con la remolacha azucarera y debe ser manejado apropiadamente para evitar cualquier efecto negativo en la raíz y en la producción de sacarosa.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: odero@uwyo.edu.
References
Hide All
Blackshaw, R. E. and Lindwall, C. W. 1995. Management systems for conservation fallow on the southern Canadian prairies. Can. J. Plant Sci 75:9399.
Boström, U., Milberg, P., and Fogelfors, H. 2003. Yield loss in spring-sown cereals related to the weed flora in the spring. Weed Sci 51:418424.
Bukun, B. 2004. The critical period for weed control in cotton in Turkey. Weed Sci 44:404412.
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239252.
du Croix Sissons, M. J., Van Acker, R. C., Derksen, D. A., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Depth of seedling recruitment of five weed species measured in situ in conventional- and zero-tillage fields. Weed Sci 48:327332.
Everman, W. J., Burke, I. C., Clewis, S. B., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2008. Critical period of grass vs. broadleaf weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol 22:6873.
Fabricius, L. J. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1968. Competition between wheat and wild buckwheat. Weed Sci 16:204208.
Forsberg, D. E. and Best, K. F. 1964. The emergence and development of wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus). Can. J. Plant Sci 44:100103.
Friesen, G. and Shebeski, L. H. 1960. Economic losses caused by weed competition in Manitoba grain fields. I. Weed species, their relative abundance and their effect on crop yields. Can. J. Plant Sci 40:457467.
Gruenhagen, R. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1969. Competition between flax and wild buckwheat. Weed Sci 17:380384.
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:737744.
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. New York: Academic Press. 892 p.
Hume, L., Martinez, J., and Best, K. 1983. The biology of Canadian weeds. 60. Polygonum convolvulus L. Can. J. Plant. Sci 63:959971.
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., and Mainz, M. 2003. Row spacing influences the critical timing of weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:666673.
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.
Messersmith, C. G. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1969. Competition between wheat and wild buckwheat. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstract No. 15.
Milford, G. F. J. 1973. The growth and development of the storage root of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol 75:427438.
Nalewaja, J. D. 1964. Competition of wild buckwheat in field crops. Pages 47. in. Proceedings of the 20th North Central Weed Control Conference. East Lansing, MI North Central Weed Science Society.
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.
Paolini, R., Principi, M., Froud-Williams, R. J., Del Puglia, S., and Biancardi, E. 1999. Competition between sugarbeet and Sinapsis arvensis and Chenopodium album, as affected by timing of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Res 39:425440.
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.
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassa analysis using R. J. Statistical Software. Journal 12:122.
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.
Stevenson, F. C. and Wright, A. T. 1996. Seeding rate and row spacing affect flax yields and weed interference. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:537544.
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci 17:464467.
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

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 191 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 19th September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.