Aggressivity: Cucumber vs. amaranth

Weed Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 986-991

  Berry, Adrian D ^a   Stall, William M ^a   Rathinasabapathi, B ^a   MacDonald, Gregory E ^a   Charudattan, R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Additive study; Replacement study; Weed competition

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; ANNUAL PLANT; ANTAGONISM; COMPETITIVE ABILITY; DICOTYLEDON; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION;

FLORIDA [UNITED STATES]; GAINESVILLE; LIVE OAK; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

AMARANTHUS CAUDATUS; AMARANTHUS HYBRIDUS; CUCUMIS SATIVUS; QUERCUS VIRGINIANA;

EID: 33846078844     PISSN: 0890037X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1614/WT-04-270.1     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aarssen, L. W. and G. A. Epp. 1990. Neighbor manipulations in natural vegetation: a review. J. Veg. Sci. 1:13-30,
2. Berry, D. A. 2002. smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and livid amaranth (Amaranthus lividus L.) interference with cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). M.S. thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 64 p.
3. Berry, D. A., W. M. Stall, B. Rathinasabapathi, G. E. MacDonald, and R. Charudattan. 2005, smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) and livid amaranth (Amaranthus lividus L.) interference with cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Weed Technol. 20:227-231.
4. Cousens, R. 1991, Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664-673.
5. Florida Agriculture Statistics. 2001. Vegetable summary. Orlando, FL: Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. Pp. 21-23.
6. Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concepts and extension of the de Wit analysis to examine effects. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:739-747.
7. Hamilton, N. R. 1994. Replacement and additive designs for plant competition studies. J. Appl. Ecol. 31:599-603.
8. Hoffman, M. L. and D. D. Buhler. 2002. Utilizing sorghum as a functional model of crop-weed competition. I. Establishing a competitive hierarchy. Weed Sci. 50:466-472.
9. Holm, G. L., J. Doll, E. Holm, and J. V. Pancho. 1977. World Weeds: Natural histories and distribution. New York: Wiley & Sons.
10. Ikeorgu, J. E. G. 1990. Glasshouse performance of three leafy 1 vegetables grown in mixtures in Nigeria. Scientia Horticulturae 43:181-188.
11. Jolliffe, P. A., A. N. Minjas, and V. C. Runeckles. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationship in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:227-243.
12. Legere, A. and M. M. Schreiber. 1989. Competition and canopy architechture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84-92.
13. Maynard, D. N., G. J. Hocmuth, C. S. Vavrina, W. M. Stall, T. A. Kucharek, S. E. Webb, T. G. Taylor, and S. A. Smith. 2001. Cucurbit Production in Florida., Pp. 51-178 In Maynard, D. N. and S. M. Olsen, eds. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. Gainesville, FL: Florida Cooperative Extension Service.
14. McGilchrist, C. A. and B. R. Trenbath. 1971. A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27:659-671.
15. McPhee, S. C. and W. L. Aarssen. 2001. The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants: a review and critique of methodoly. Plant Ecol. 152:119-136.
16. Meekins, J. F. and B. C. McCarthy. 1999. Competitive ability of Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard, brassicaceae), an invasive, nonindigenous forest herb. Int. J. Plant Sci. 160:743-752.
17. Morales-Payan, J. P., B. M. Santos, W. M. Stall, and T. A. Bewick. 1997. Effects of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Technol. 11:672-676.
18. Morales-Payan, J. P. and W. M. Stall. 2002a. Time removal and population density effects of livid amaranth on bell pepper (Capsicum annum). Hortscience 37:747-748.
19. Morales-Payan, J. P. and W. M. Stall. 2002b. Yield of polyethylene-mulched bell pepper (Capsicum annum) as affected by time of emergence and population density of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.). Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 115:200-202
20. Ogg, G. A., Jr., R. H. Stephens, and D. R. Gealy. 1994. Interference between mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula) and pea (Pisum sativum) is affected by form of interference and soil water regime. Weed Sci. 42:579-585.
21. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190-198.
22. Rejmanek, M., G. R. Robinson, and E. Rejmankova. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276-284.
23. Roos, D. L. 1999. American black nightshade (Solanum americanum Mill.) interference in bell pepper (Capsicum annum L.). Master's thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 90 p.
24. Roush, M. L. and S. R. Radosevich. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895-905.
25. Roush, M. L., S. R. Radosevich, R. G. Wagner, B. D. Maxwell, and T. D. Petersen, 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268-275.
26. Rushing, D. W., D. S. Murray, and L. M. Verhalen. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815-818.
27. Santos, B. M., W. M. Stall, D. G. Shilling, and T. A. Bewick. 1997. Competitive interactions of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and nutsedge (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:229-233.
28. SAS. 2000. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
29. Southern Weed Science Society. 1999. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.
30. Terry, R. E., Jr., W. M. Stall, D. G. Shilling, T. A. Bewick, and S. R. Kostewitz. 1997. Smooth amaranth interference with watermelon and muskmelon production. Hortscience 32(4):630-632.