4.7 Article

Interference between red kidneybean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.)

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages 13-21

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2014.07.002

Keywords

Crop competitiveness; Crop and weed interaction; Interference; Leaf area index; Photosynthetically active radiation; Redroot pigweed

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Field experiments were conducted in 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the competitive ability of bush type red kidneybean (RKB) (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars against redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Three cultivars of RKB (Akhtar, Sayyad and D81083) and five A. retroflexus densities (0, 4, 8, 16 and 32 plants m(-2)) were established in a factorial arrangement. A. retroflexus had a greater plant height and growth rate (GR) but a lower leaf area index (LAI) than RKB cultivars in almost all treatments. Higher densities of A. retroflexus increased LAI and GR but decreased yield of RKB cultivars. The cv. Sayyad and D81083 had the greatest and lowest LAI and GR, respectively, in competition with A. retroflexus. The maximum intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at noon by A. retroflexus was 90.4 and 66.0% in competition with cv. D81083 and Sayyad, respectively. The seed yield and pod number per plant of RKB cultivars decreased severely with increasing A. retroflexus density. A. retroflexus seed number m(-2) was the highest and lowest in competition with cv. 081083 and Sayyad, respectively. The competitive ability of RKB cultivars was compared using parameters estimated through two-parameter yield loss-relative leaf area model. The relative ranking of the RKB cultivars examined for their competitiveness, supported by modeling results, was Sayyad > Akhtar > D81083. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available