Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T14:05:28.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Giant Burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum) and Shade on Wild Rice (Zizania palustris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sharon A. Clay  and
Ervin A. Oelke
Sharon A. Clay
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Ervin A. Oelke
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted at Grand Rapids, MN, to determine the effect of giant burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum Engelm. # SPGEU) planted at 6, 12, and 24 corms/m2 on wild rice (Zizania palustris L. ‘K2′) growth and yield. Giant burreed, a spreading perennial, had shoot densities of 21, 29, and 42/m2 at harvest for the 6, 12, and 24 corms/m2 treatments, respectively. Wild rice yield and panicle number were reduced approximately 60% when giant burreed shoot density was 40/m2 or higher when compared to the weed-free control. Giant burreed did not interfere with nutrient uptake of wild rice on a whole-plant basis, and increased N fertilizer application did not reduce losses in dry weight. Giant burreed reduced penetration of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) from 2 to 35% in the wild rice canopy from the early tillering to the anthesis stage of wild rice development. In growth chamber studies, wild rice dry weight and panicle number were reduced by 46 and 65%, respectively, when wild rice was shaded for 12 weeks and compared to a full light treatment. Reduction of PAR penetration into the wild rice canopy appears to be the major mechanism of giant burreed interference with wild rice.

Keywords

Weed populationinterferenceyield reductionSPGEU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , September 1987 , pp. 640 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Bremner, J. M. 1965. Total nitrogen. Pages 1149–1178 in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1970. Estimating losses from weeds in crop. Pages 3.2.2/1–3.2.2/4 in Crop Loss Assessment Methods. FAO. Rome.Google Scholar
3. Grava, J. and Raisanen, K. A. 1978. Growth and nutrient accumulation and distribution in wild rice. Agron. J. 70:1077–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gerloff, G. C. and Krombholz, P. H. 1966. Tissue analysis as a measure of nutrient availability for the growth of angiosperm aquatic plants. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11:529–537.Google Scholar
5. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
6. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.Google Scholar
7. Kern-Hansen, U. and Dawson, F. H. 1978. The standing crop of aquatic plants of lowland streams in Denmark and the interrelationships of nutrients in plant, sediment, and water. Pages 143–150 in 5th International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds. EWRS. Amsterdam. A. Wheaton and Co., Ltd., Exter, Great Britain.Google Scholar
8. Okafor, L. I. and DeDatta, S. K. 1976. Competition between upland rice and purple nutsedge for nitrogen, moisture, and light. Weed Sci. 24:43–46.Google Scholar
9. Ransom, J. K. and Oelke, E. A. 1982. Common waterplantain (Alisma triviale) interference with wild rice (Zizania palustris). Weed Sci. 30:10–14.Google Scholar
10. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 195 pp.Google Scholar