Effect of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference on growth period, chlorophyle content, leaf senescence and yield of marigold (Calendula officinalis)
Subject Areas : New Finding in Agriculture
1 - Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Keywords: Essence yield, Relative emergence time, Senescence symptoms,
Abstract :
In order to study effect of lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference on some traits of marigold (Calendula officinalis) and weed seed production index a factorial experiment was conducted during 2012 in Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, based on randomized complete blocks design in 3 replications. Studied factors were weed densities of 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 plants per meter row and its relative emergence times of simultaneously, 10, 20 and 30 days after crop. Results indicated that emergence of 4 weed plants per meter row had no significant effect on crop growth period. With increasing of weed density more than 4 plants per meter row leaf chlorophyle content index decreased fron 17.5 to 13.5 (17.5% reduction). Weed interference caused to earlier appearance of leaf senescence symptoms from 9 to 13 days. Effect of higher weed densities on plant height was more than lower densities. Lambsquarters had greater negative effect on marigold yield, and weed density was more effective than its emergence time. Harvest index in weedy plots reduced fron 32% to 25%. Essence yield in marigold decreased 14.4 mL m-2 per weed density. In weed plants emerged simultaneously, 10, 20 and 30 days after crop, 5.6%, 4.4%, 4.1% and 4% of above ground biomass allocated to seed, respectively. It is recommended for the weed controling in marigold field, when emerged atleast 2 plants per meter crop row simultaneously or 10 days after crop.
1- Abu Zeid, E. N. and Balba, L. K. 2010. Seedling growth and yield quality of Valeriana officinalis affected by simulated sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) as a weed. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., 33(2): 102-112.
2- Akhavan Sales, M. and Moshfeghi, N. 2008. Seed dormancy breaking in Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Agronomy, BirjandUniversity.
3- Arif, M., Jan, T. and Javed, N. 2011. Effect of weeds interference on various wheat cultivars. Sarhad J. Agric., 22: 27-29.
4- Cavero, J., Zaragoza, C., Bastiaans, L., Suso, M. L. and Pardo, A. 2009. The relevance of morphological plasticity in the simulation of competition between maize and Datura stramonium. Weed Res., 40: 163-180.
5- Gupta, O. P. 2011. Modern weed management. Agrobios Publ., India, 339p.
6- Hosseini, A., Koocheki, A. and Nassiri Mahalati, M. 2007. Critical period of weed control in cumin (Cuminum cyminum). Iran J. Crop Res., 4(1): 23-34.
7- Ibrahim, R., Ujalan, R. and Ali, I. 2009. Evaluation of interference among some dominant weeds and fennel (Foeniculun vulgare) at Izmir region. African J. Med. Plant Res., 5(1): 8-13.
8- Kavaliauskaite, D. and Bobinas, C. 2006. Determination of weed competition critical period in red beet. Agron Res., 4: 217-220.
9- Kropff, M. J. and Van Laar, H. H. 1993. Crop-weed interactions. CAB international, Wallingford, UK.
10- Mahmoudi, S. 2003. Ecophysiological study between Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and corn (Zea mays). Ph.D. Thesis in Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, TehranUniversity, 210p.
11- Mirshekari, B. 2010. Efficiency of empirical competition models for simulation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield at interference with redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Sugar beet J., 24(2): 73-91.
12- Mirshekari, B. 2010. Yield and harvest index of sunflower (Helianthus annus) in monoculture and competition with redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Modern Sci. Sustain. Agric. J., 6(18): 73-88.
13- Mirshekari, B. 2011. Cultivation of Medicinal and Spice Crops. Islamic AzadUniversity Publ. 209p.
14- Rabbit, K. and Singh, W. 2012. Botanical study of pot marigold (Calendula officinalis). Ruhi Publ, New Delhi, India.
15- Rajcan, I. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize-weed competition: Resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Res., 71(2): 139-150.
16- Rohris, M. and Stunzel, H. 2001. Canopy development of Chenopodium album in pure and mixed stands. Weed Res., 41: 111-128.
17- Ronald, A. E. and Smith, E. C. 2000. The flora of the Nova Scotia. HalifNova ScotiaMuseum, 746p.
18- Scheepens, P.C., Lempennar, C., Andereasen, C., Eggers, T. H., Netland, J. and Vurro, M. 1997. Biological control of annual weed Chenopodiun album, with emphasis on the application of Ascochyta caulina as a microbial herbicide. Integrated Pest Manag. Rev., 2: 71-76.
19- Shurrtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. The interaction of soybean (Glycine max) and five weed species in the greenhouse. Weed Sci., 33: 669-672.
20- Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: The role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agro-ecosystem health. Weed Sci., 44: 437-445.
21- Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F. and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agro J., 86: 591-595.
22- Traore, R., Mauro, A. R., Dirceu, A. and Alvadi, A. B. J. 2003. Interference of sorghum cultivars with weeds. Proc.FloridaState Hort. Soc., 110: 117-120.
23- Wellmann, A. and Marlander, B. 1996. Effect of time of weed emergence on competition between sugar beet and Chenopodium album. Zucker Industry, 121(8): 595-600.
