Canopy Architecture of Soybean (Glycine max), Xanthium strumarium and Amaranthus retroflexus Under Different Interference Condition

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Alireza yousefi
• M. Rastgoo ¹
• H. Alizadeh ²
• M. A. Baghestani ³

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² University of Tehran

³ Plant Pest and Disease Research Institute

10.22067/jpp.v28i3.43543

Abstract

In order to evaluate the effects of Xanthium strumarium or Amaranthus retroflexus competition under unsprayed and sprayed (half the recommended rate of imazethapyr) on canopy architecture of weed and soybean, field experiment was conducted at the Research Farm of University of Tehran, during the growing season of 2007 and 2008. The experimental design was factorial based on randomized complete block design with three replications. Two herbicide dose (0 and 35g a.i ha-1) and X. strumarium (at density of 0, 2, 4, 8 plants m-1 of row) or A. retroflexus (at density of 0, 4, 8, 12 plants m-1 of row) interference were studied. Different canopy architecture was found for soybean in monocultures compared to interspecific competition. In monocultures, with exception for lower layer (0-30 cm), soybean plant had similar pattern for LA distribution within the canopy. By increasing density in untreated plot, soybean plants developed a large proportion of their leaf area in the upper portion of the canopy. soybean plants loss their lower (0-60 cm) leaves in competition with the highest densities A. retroflexus. However, canopy architecture and leaf area distribution of soybeans grown with X. strumarium or A. retroflexus was similar to soybeans grown alone in the reduced rate of herbicide. At the density of 2 and 4 plants m-1 of row, X. strumarium had leaves in all layers of the canopy and was able to develop and maintain its lower canopy leaves under the shade. In contrast, A. retroflexus retained few to no leaves within the lower layers of the canopy. It seems that more competitive ability of X. strumarium compared to A. retroflexus was mainly due to the growth habit of this plant, which has its leaves distributed evenly within the canopy. Result also showed that crop yield affected more by X. strumarium compared with A. retroflexus. Our results suggested that on the basis of X. strumarium superior competitive ability, it should be given a greater priority for control than A. retroflexus in soybean. The half rate of herbicide significantly decreased the competitive ability of X. strumarium and A. retroflexus indicating that, in soybean, application of this rate is recommended in similar condition.

Keywords

• Competition
• Leaf area distribution
• Reduced rate of herbicide

20.1001.1.20084749.1393.28.3.4.4

---

References

1- Bensch C.N., Horak M.J., and Peterson D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Science, 51: 37–43.

2- Cavero J., Zaragoza C., Suso M.L., and Parado A.1999. Competition between maize and Datura stramonium in an irrigated field under semi-arid conditions. Weed Research, 39:225-240.

3- Clayton, G.W., Harker K.N., O’Donovan J.T., Baig M.N., and Kidnie M.J. 2002. Glyphosate timing and tillage system effects on glyphosate-tolerant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technology, 16:124–130.

4- Cown, p., Weaver, S.E., and Swanton C.J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp) barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-gali) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Science, 46: 535-539.

5- Hamaya K., Ishida M., Oka H., Haruna K., Isobe K., and Ishii R. 2007. Effects of high ground-water level on the growth and yield of supernodulating soybean cultivar, Sakukei4. Plant Production Science, 10: 478-480.

6- Harker K.N., Clayton G.W., Blackshaw R.E., O’Donovan J.T., and Stevenson F.C. 2003. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 83: 433–440.

7- Harper F. 1983. Inter-specific competition. In: principle of Arable crop production “. Granada Publishing, 198-229.

8- Holm L.G., Plucknett, D.L. Pancho, J.V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds. 609 pp. (East-West Centre, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii).

9- Holt J.S. 1995. Plant responses to light. A potential tool for weed management. Weed Science, 43: 474-482.

10- Krausz, F.R., Young B.G., Kapusta G., and Matthews J.L. 2001. Influence of weed competition and herbicides on glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology, 15: 530–534.

11- Kropff, M., and Van laar H.H. 1993. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. CAB international. Walligford. UK.

12- Kropff M.J. and Lotz L.A. P. 1992. Systems approaches to quantify crop-weed interactions and their application in weed management. Agricultural System, 40: 265-282.

13- Legere A., and Schreiber M.M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Science, 37: 84-92.

14- Massinga A.R., Currie R.S., Horak M.J., and Boyer J. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Science, 49: 202–208.

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

16- Mosier D.G., and Oliver L.R. 1995. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and entire leaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var.integriuscula) interference on soybean (Glycine max). Weed Science, 43:239-246.

17- Murphy S.D., Yakubu Y., Weise S.F. and Swanton C.J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emergence weeds. Weed Science, 29: 610-615.

18- Norsworthy J.K., and Oliveira M.J. 2007. Tillage and soybean canopy effects on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) emergence. Weed Science, 55: 474–480.

19- Oliver L.R., Frans, R.E. and Talbert R.E. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybean. I. Growth analysis. Weed Science, 24: 482–488.

20- Peng, S., Garcia, F.V., Laza R.C., and Cassman K.G. 1993. Adjustment for specific leaf weight improves cholorophylmeters estimate of rice leaf nitrogen concentration. Agronomy Journal, 85: 987-990.

21- Pike D.R., Stoller E.W., and Wax L.M. 1990. Modeling soybean growth and canopy apportionment in weed-soybean (Glycine max) competition. Weed Science, 38: 522-527.

22- Peterson D.E., and Nalewaja J.D. 1992. Environment influences green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition with wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technology, 6: 607-610.

23- Rajcan I., and Swanton C.J. 2001. Undrestanding maize-weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crop Research, 71: 139-150.

24- Rohrig M., and Stunzel H. 2001. Canopy development of Chenopodium album in pure and mixed stands. Weed Research, 41: 111-228.

25- Sims B.D., and Oliver L.R. 1990. Mutual influences of seedling johnson-grass (Sorghum halepense), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Science, 38:139-147.

26- Soltani N., Van Eerd L.L., Vyn R., Shropshire C., and Sikkema P.H. 2007. Weed management in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with dimethenamid plus reduced doses of imazethapyr applied preplant incorporated. Crop Protection, 27:739-745

27- Tredaway D.J., Morgan S.G.D., Wilkerson J.B., Hart W.E. Hayes, R. M. and Mueller, T. C. 2003. Site-specific weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technology, 17: 711-717.

28- Wilkerson G.G., jones J.W., Coble H.D. and Gunsolus J.L. 1990. SOYWEED: a model of soybean and common cocklebur growth and competition. Agronomy Journal, 82:1003-1010.

29- Woolley B.L., Swanton C.J., Hall M. R. and Michaels T.E. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Science, 41: 180-184.

30- Yousefi A.R., Gonzalez-Andujar J.L., Alizadeh H., Baghestani M.A., Rahimian H. and Karimmojeni H. 2012. Interactions between reduced rate of imazethapyr and multiple weed species–soyabean interference in a semi-arid environment. Weed Research, 52:242-251.