Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-14T14:28:58.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting soybean yield loss in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shawn P. Conley ,
David E. Stoltenberg ,
Chris M. Boerboom  and
Larry K. Binning
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Chris M. Boerboom
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Larry K. Binning
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Widespread use of crop yield loss models based on weed density has been limited on account of spatial and temporal variability. Furthermore, research characterizing crop yield loss associated with two or more weed species is lacking for many cropping systems. Therefore, research was conducted to characterize giant foxtail and common lambsquarters leaf area, height, and shoot volume in soybean, to quantify the relative competitive ability of giant foxtail and common lambsquarters in a mixed–weed species environment, and to assess weed density, weed relative leaf area, and weed relative volume as predictors of soybean yield loss. Based on weed density, coefficient estimates of percent soybean yield loss as giant foxtail or common lambsquarters densities approached zero differed between years. In contrast, coefficient estimates of maximum soybean yield loss were similar between years. Based on weed relative leaf area, estimates of giant foxtail or common lambsquarters damage coefficients differed between years. Similarly, estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with common lambsquarters leaf area differed between years, whereas estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with giant foxtail leaf area did not change over time within a growing season or between years. Based on weed relative volume, estimates of giant foxtail or common lambsquarters damage coefficients differed between years. Similarly, estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with common lambsquarters volume differed between years, whereas estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with giant foxtail volume did not change over time within a growing season or between years. Based on weed density, weed relative leaf area, or weed relative volume, giant foxtail was more competitive than common lambsquarters in terms of soybean yield loss. Temporal variability of weed density, weed relative leaf area, and weed relative volume indicates that additional parameters may be required to accurately predict weed–crop interactions in a multiple–weed species community.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow AG2101’Leaf areavolumedensityweed interferencecompetitioncrop yield loss

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 402 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Alm, D. M., Pike, D. R., Hesketh, J. D., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Leaf area development in some crop and weed species. Biotronics. 17:9–39.Google Scholar
Bussler, B. H., Maxwell, B. D., and Puettmann, K. J. 1995. Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci. 43:586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J. B., Stoltenberg, D. E., Binning, L. K., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Phenology of common lambsquarters growth parameters. Weed Sci. 49:177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, S. P. 2001. Interference Among Giant Foxtail, Common Lambsquarters, and Soybean. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Common lambsquarters competition and time of removal in soybeans. Weed Sci. 38:358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weisse, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 15–76, 135–169, 505–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. and Banken, K. R. 1996. Relationships among green foxtail (Setaria viridis) seedling development, growing degree days, and time of nicosulfuron application. Weed Technol. 10:60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Stevens, C. S., and Wax, L. M. 1985. Interference and control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., Anderson, R. L. et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum-Aegilops cylindrical interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1977. Giant foxtail, the most serious annual grass weed in the Midwest. Weeds Today. 9:19–20.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds. 10:26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Lotz, L.A.P., Weaver, S. E., Bos, H. J., Wallinga, J., and Migo, T. 1995. A two parameter model for prediction of crop yield loss by weed competition from early observations of relative leaf area of the weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126:329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop yield loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S. III, and Pons, T. L. 1998. Growth and allocation. Pages 299–351 In Plant Physiological Ecology. New York: Spinger-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Christensen, S., Cloutier, D. et al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 36:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashingaidzee, A. B. 1990. Comparison of Leaf Expansion Rates in Four Crops and Seven Weeds under Two Temperature Regimes. . Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 85 p.Google Scholar
Moechnig, M. J., Stoltenberg, D. E., Boerboom, C. M., and Norman, J. M. 2000. Canopy characterization of weed-corn communities. Pages 86–87 In Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with integrated methods as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 45:706–715.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Weed species-area relationships as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 49:217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngouajio, M., Lemieux, C., and Leroux, G. D. 1999. Prediction of corn (Zea mays) yield loss from early observations of the relative leaf area and the relative cover of weeds. Weed Sci. 47:297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T. 1996. Weed economic thresholds: useful agronomic tool or pipe dream. Phytoprotection. 77:13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., Thompson, H. E., and Benson, G. O. 1997. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology Cooperative Extension Service, Special Rep. 53.Google Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Lutman, P.J.W., and Froud-Williams, R. J. 1997. Predicting yield loss due to interference from two weed species using early observations of relative weed leaf area. Weed Res. 37:287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Lutman, P.J.W., and Froud-Williams, R. J. 1998. Additive infestation model (AIM) analysis for the study of two-weed species interference. Weed Res. 38:275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkinson, A. R., Lintell-Smith, G., Newsham, K. K., and Rowcliffe, J. M. 1993. Population interactions and the determinants of population size. Plant Species Biol. 8:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederholt, R. J. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996. Absence of differential fitness between giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) accessions resistant and susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 44:18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar