Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-30T02:40:41.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Interference in Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

H. D. Coble ,
F. M. Williams  and
R. L. Ritter
H. D. Coble
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650
F. M. Williams
Affiliation:
Ferrum College, Ferrum, VA 24088
R. L. Ritter
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) interference on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Ransom’] yield was studied in the field utilizing naturally occurring weed populations. The damage-threshold population for a full-season, in-row common ragweed infestation was four weeds/10 m of row, which resulted in an 8% yield loss. Soybeans kept weed-free for 2 weeks or longer after emergence in a dry year produced normal yields, but 4 weeks of weed-free maintenance was required when adequate moisture was available early in the growing season. Soybean yield was not reduced by a natural population of common ragweed if the period of interference was limited to 6 weeks or less after crop emergence. By 8 weeks after emergence, common ragweed height averaged 25 cm taller than soybeans, and the weed canopy intercepted 24% of the photosynthetically active radiation.

Keywords

Competitioneconomic thresholdintegrated pest management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 1981 , pp. 339 - 342
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anderson, J. M. and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybean production. Weed Sci. 24:397–400.Google Scholar
2. Bard, G. E. 1952. Secondary succession on the Piedmont of New Jersey. Ecol. Monogr. 22:195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bazzaz, F. A. 1968. Succession on abandoned fields in the Shawnee Hills, southern Illinois. Ecology 49:924–936.Google Scholar
5. Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1978. Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max . Weed Sci. 26:556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weeds 16:396–400.Google Scholar
7. Eaton, B. J., Feltner, K. C., and Russ, O. G. 1973. Venice mallow competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 21:89–94.Google Scholar
8. Keever, C. 1950. Causes of succession on old fields of the Piedmont North Carolina. Ecol. Monogr. 20:231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.Google Scholar
10. Oosting, H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont North Carolina. Amer. Midl. Nat. 28: 1–126.Google Scholar
11. Palmer, R. D. 1979. Weed survey – Southern states. South Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rept. 32:115.Google Scholar
12. Quarterman, E. 1957. Early plant succession on abandoned cropland in the Central Basin of Tennessee. Ecology 38:300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Staniforth, D. W. 1965. Competitive effects of three foxtail species on soybeans. Weeds 13:191–193.Google Scholar
14. Thurslow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Waldrep, T. W. and McLaughlin, R. D. 1969. Cocklebur competition and control. Soybean Farmer 3:26–27, 30.Google Scholar
16. Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14:49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar