Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T09:42:24.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop Planting Pattern Effects on Early Growth and Canopy Shape of Cultivated and Wild Oats (Avena fatua)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Emilie E. Regnier  and
Kufimfutu B. Bakelana
Emilie E. Regnier
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Kufimfutu B. Bakelana
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine the effects of cultivated oats planting pattern on early canopy shape and growth of cultivated oats and wild oats, in part to test the assumption of radial plant canopy expansion on which previous theoretical models of crop-weed interference models have been based. Cultivated oats density was kept constant as the pattern rectangularity was varied, and single wild oats plants were centered within each pattern. Individual plant canopies, photographed from above 31 days after emergence (DAE), were radial for wild oats in all crop planting patterns and for cultivated oats planted in triangular and square planting patterns. Canopy radius perpendicular to the crop row axis in rectangular patterns was similar to canopy radius along the same cardinal axis in equidistant patterns, but was reduced along the crop row axis, resulting in a rectangular canopy shape and decreased canopy area in rectangular compared to equidistant patterns. Cultivated oats dry weight and leaf area at crop flowering (64 DAE) also decreased with increasing rectangularity of crop planting pattern. Reductions in cultivated oats growth in rectangular patterns were associated with earlier intraspecific interference and delayed crop canopy closure in rectangular compared to equidistant patterns. Wild oats leaf area and tiller number 64 DAE decreased with more equidistant crop planting patterns, consistent with reduced canopy area 31 DAE and earlier crop canopy closure in equidistant patterns. The data suggest that individual oats canopy expansion during early growth is essentially radial and also support previous theoretical predictions of crop planting pattern effects on weed suppression.

Keywords

Wild oats, Avena fatua L. #3 AVEFAoats, Avena sativa L. ‘Ogle’ and ‘Pennvda.’Weed suppressioncanopy expansionAVEFA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 88 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the 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

1. Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sanchez, R. A. 1990. Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: an early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science 247:329–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Kendrick, R. E. 1992. Phytochrome-mediated phototropism in de-etiolated seedlings. Plant Physiol. 100:170–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Bendixen, L. E. 1988. Soybean (Glycine max) competition helps herbicides control johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol. 2:46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Carmer, S. G. and Seif, R. D. 1963. Calculation of orthogonal coefficients when treatments are unequally replicated and/or unequally spaced. Agron. J. 55:387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Casal, J. J., Sanchez, R. A., and Deregibus, V. A. 1986. The effect of plant density on tillering: the involvement of R/FR ratio and the proportion of radiation intercepted per plant. Environ. Exp. Bot. 26:365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. deWit, C. F. 1960. On competition. Versl. Lanbouwk. D. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
7. Doss, D. B. and Thurlow, D. L. 1974. Irrigation, row width, and plant population in relation to growth characteristics of two soybean varieties. Agron. J. 66:620–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Duncan, W. G. 1986. Planting patterns and soybean yields. Crop Sci. 26:584–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Fawcett, R. G. 1964. Effect of certain conditions on yield of crop plants. Nature 204:858–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Felton, W. L. 1976. The influence of row spacing and plant population on the effect of weed competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 16:926–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Fischer, R. A. and Miles, R. E. 1973. The role of spatial pattern in the competition between crop plants and weeds. A theoretical analysis. Math. Biosci. 18:335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Frost, D. J. and Kretchman, D. W. 1988. Plant spatial arrangement and density effects on small- and medium-vined processing tomatoes. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 113:51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Freund, R. J., Little, R. C., and Spector, P. C. 1986. SAS systems for linear models. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
14. Hicks, D. R., Pendleton, J. W., Bernard, R. L., and Johnson, T. J. 1969. Response of soybean plant types to planting patterns. Agron. J. 61:290–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kemp, D. R., Auld, B. A., and Medd, R. W. 1983. Does optimizing plant arrangements reduce interference or improve the utilization of space? Agric. Sys. 12:31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Lauer, J. G. and Simmons, S. R. 1989. Canopy light and tiller mortality in spring barley. Crop Sci. 29:420–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Norris, R. F. 1992. Relationship between inflorescence size and seed production in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Sci. 40:74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Patterson, M. G., Walker, R. H., Colvin, D. L., Wehtje, G., and McGuire, J. A. 1988. Comparison of soybean (Glycine max)-weed interference from large and small plots. Weed Sci. 36:836–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. p. 233–237.Google Scholar
20. Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed competition with snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row-spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci 16:462–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Wells, R. 1993. Dynamics of soybean growth in variable planting patterns. Agron. J. 85:44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Wiggans, R. G. 1939. The influence of space and arrangement on the production of soybean plants. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 31:314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar