Study of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) phenologic stages at interference with three sunflower hybrids

Subject Areas : Agroecology Journal

Bahram Mirshekari ¹

1 - Assistant Professor of Agronomy and Plant Breeding Department, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch

Received: 2008-01-27 Accepted : 2008-06-25 Published : 2008-10-22

Keywords: Phenology, Redroot Pigweed. Sunflower, Interference, Relative time of emergence,

Abstract :

In order to study of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) phenology at interference with three sunflower, Helianthus annus L., cultivars, two field experiments were conducted during 2005-2006. Factorial experiments were established on randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were combination of three different weed densities (8.3, 25 and 41.7 plants m-2) at three relative times of weed emergence (emerged with sunflower, 15 and 30 days after sunflower emergence) using three different sunflower cultivars (Azarghol, Hysun 33 and Allstar RM). Analysis of variance revealed that the year effect was not significant. Redroot pigweed leaf number in each plant decreased significantly, by increasing weed density and delaying of weed emergence time. Sunflower cultivars also indicated different reactions. In redroot pigweeds that emerging with sunflower, branching at densities of 5, 15 and 25 plants/ m-2 of row delayed 0.67, 0.33 and 2 days in Azarghol, 1.68, 1.33 and 4.33 days in Hysun, in comparison with emergence at 15 days after sunflower, and delaying in Allstar was nearly zero. In three sunflower cultivars, with increasing of density and delaying of emergence time, flowering in redroot pigweed delayed and relative time of weed emergence was more effective than weed density. Earlier emergence of weed has higher effect on flowering delaying of Allstar, compared with two other cultivars. In all sunflower hybrids, time from flowering to seed maturity and growth period of redroot pigweed decreased in treatments with higher sunflower side branches.          

References:

1- راشد محصل، م. ح.، ح. رحیمیان و م. بنایان. 1371. علف­های­هرز و کنترل آن­ها (ترجمه). انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی مشهد، 576 ص.

2. Bhowmick, P. C. 1997. Weed biology: Importance to weed management. Weed Science 45: 349- 356.

3. Brusko, I., E. C. Smith and S. D. Murphy. 1985. Interference of soybean cultivars with Alopecurus muosuroides. Weed Science 49: 85-92. 

4. Carranza, P., M. Saaverda and L. Garci-Torres. 1995. Competition between Radolfia segetum and sunflower. Weed Research 35: 375-396.

5. Dew, D. A. 1972. Index of competition for estimating crop losses due to weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 52: 921- 927.

6. Elbers, D. B. and H. N. Dekruyf. 1979. Competition between Hordeum vulgare L. and Chenopodium album L. with different density of Chenopodium album L. Journal of Agricultural Science 27: 13-26. 

7. Gupta, O. P. 2000. Modern weed management. Agrobios Publisher, India, 339pp.

8. Hager, A. G., L. M. Wax, F. W. Simmons and E.W. Stoller. 1997. Waterhemp management in agronomic crops. University of Illinois Bulletin, P: 12.

9. Harker, K. N., G. W. Clayton and A. M. Johnston. 1999. Time of weed removal for canola. Proceeding of the 10^th International Rapeseed Conference, Canberra, Australia, p. 33.

10. Hugger, H. 1989. Sonnenblumen: Zuechtung, anbau, verarbeitung. Stuttgart, Ulmer, Verlag, 230p.

 

92

11. Irena Rajcan, I. 2002. Vegetative and reproductive development of Amaranthus retroflexus at different density. Weed Science 38: 8-15. 

12. Knezevic, S. Z. and M. J. Horak. 1998. Estimates physiological determinates for Amaranthus retroflexus. Weed Science 47: 291-296.

13. Mc Lachlan, S. M., M. Tollenaar, C. J. Swanton and S. F. Weise. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Science 41: 568-573.

14. Murphy, S. D., Y. Yakubu, S. F. Weise and C. J. Swanton. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Science 44: 856-870.

15. Nilson, G. F., A. R. Mauro, A. Dirceu and A. B. J. Alvadi. 2004. Interference of hair beggarticks and arrowleaf sida with soybeans: Effects of plant density and relative emergence time. Ciencia Rural, Santa Maria 34(1): 31-40.

16. O^,Sullivan, P. A., G. M. Weiss and V. C. Kossatz. 1985. Indics of competition for estimating rapeseed yield loss due to Canada thistle. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 65: 145-149.

17. Peters, N. C. B. and B. J. Wilson. 1983. Some studies on the competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley. II: Variation of A. fatua emergence and development and its influence on crop yield. Weed Research 23: 305-311.

18. Rohris, M. and H. Stunzel. 2001. Canopy development of Chenopodium album in pure and mixed stands. Weed Research 41: 111-128.

19. Ronald, A. E. 2000. Amaranthus retroflexus / pigweed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 55 pp. 

20. Ronald, A. E. and E. C. Smith. 2000. The flora of the Nova Scotia. Halif Nova Scotia Museum, 746 pp.

21. Santos, B. M., J. A. Dusky, W. M. Stall, D. J. Shilling and T. A. Bewick. 1997. Influence of smooth pigweed and common purslane on lettuce as affected by  phosphorus fertility. Proceeding of Florida State Horticulture Society 110: 315-317.

22. Traore, R., A. R. Mauro, A. Dirceu and A. B. J. Alvadi. 2003. Interference of sorghum cultivars with weeds. Proceeding of Florida State Horticulture Society 110: 117-120.