Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T16:36:19.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Time of Emergence and Density on White Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David Chikoye ,
Stephan F. Weise  and
Clarence J. Swanton
David Chikoye
Affiliation:
Crop Science Dep., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Stephan F. Weise
Affiliation:
Crop Science Dep., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Dep., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common ragweed is a major problem in white bean production systems in Ontario. The influence of time of emergence and density of common ragweed on white bean growth and seed yield was examined in Ontario at Elora in 1990, and at Woodstock and Staffa in 1991 and 1992. Ragweed emerged with white bean seedlings (VE) and at the second trifoliate stage of white bean (V3). Time of ragweed emergence and weed density affected white bean yield at all locations. When 1.5 ragweed seedlings m−1 of row emerged at the VE stage of crop growth 10 to 22% seed yield loss occurred. Yield losses of 4 to 9% occurred when 1.5 ragweed seedlings m−1 of row emerged at the V3 crop stage. Yield loss parameter estimates, i.e., the predicted weed-free crop yield (YWF) and the maximum yield loss (A), varied among locations and with time of ragweed emergence, whereas the parameter for yield loss at low weed density (I) was more consistent across all locations and times of weed emergence. Although I values were relatively consistent across locations and times of ragweed emergence, the standard errors associated with each estimate were large. White bean leaf area index, above-ground biomass and pod number m−2 were affected most by ragweed interference. White bean density, number of seeds per pod, and seed weight per plant were not affected by ragweed interference. Ragweed emerging at VE and V3 produced a maximum of 6000 and 1000 seeds m−2, respectively. Time of ragweed emergence may be more important than weed density when evaluating weed control options.

Keywords

Common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. #3 AMBELwhite bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., ‘Centralia,’ ‘OAC Gryphon,’ ‘Stinger.’Integrated weed managementdry edible beaninterferenceyield lossweed seed yield

Information

Type
Weed biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 375 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

LITERATURE CITED

1. Adcock, T.E. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Effects of preemergence herbicides on the competitiveness of selected weeds. Weed Sci. 39:54–56.Google Scholar
2. Alex, J. 1992. Ontario Weeds. Publication 505. Consumer Information Center. Ontario Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 304 pp.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous, 1992. Agriculture Statistics for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Publication 20. Toronto. Ontario, Canada. 156 pp.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous 1992. Field crop recommendations. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Publication 296. Toronto. Ontario, Canada. 96 pp.Google Scholar
5. Baldwin, F. L. and Santelmann, P. W. 1980. Weed science in integrated pest management. Bioscience 30:675–678.Google Scholar
6. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solarium sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Coble, H. D., Williams, F. M., and Ritter, R. L. 1981. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:339–342.Google Scholar
8. Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513–521.Google Scholar
9. Cousens, R., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1985. To spray or not to spray: the theory behind the practice. Proc. British Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 2:671–678.Google Scholar
10. Evanylo, G. K. and Zehnder, G. W. 1989. Effects of interference of common ragweed and herbicide control with trifluralin at various soil K levels on yield and nutrient uptake by snap beans. Applied Agri. Res. 4:101–105.Google Scholar
11. Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
12. Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of econometrics: An introductory exposition of econometric methods. The MacMillan Press Limited. London. pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
13. Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn. Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
14. Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:62–68.Google Scholar
15. Moxley, J. 1989. A survey of pesticide use in Ontario. Economic information report no. 89–08. Economics and Policy Coordination Branch. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Toronto. Ontario, Canada. 40 pp.Google Scholar
16. Nuland, D. S. 1989. A visual description of the common bean plant four major growth periods. Bean Improvement Coop. 32:16–17.Google Scholar
17. Sandoval-Avila, D. M., Michaels, T. E., Murphy, S. D. and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of conservation tillage and planting pattern on performance of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:801–805.Google Scholar
18. SAS, 1987. SAS/STAT Users' guide. Version 6. 4th Edition. Statistical Analysis Systems, Box 8000, Cary, NC 27511-8000. pp. 1290.Google Scholar
19. Shurtleff, J.L. and Coble, H.D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.Google Scholar
20. Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google Scholar
21. Toole, E. H. and Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the Duvel buried seed experiment. J. of Agric. Res. 72:201–210.Google Scholar
22. Weaver, S. E. 1986. Factors affecting threshold levels and seed production of Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) in soybeans (Glycine max L. Merr.). Weed Res. 26:215–223.Google Scholar
23. Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5:674–679.Google Scholar
24. Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar
25. Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.Google Scholar