100 palmer amaranth (amaranthus palmeri 2 ) interference in … · 2016-03-01 · to 2.2 kg m-1,...
TRANSCRIPT
IntroductionNorth Carolina produces 40% of the nation’s sweetpotato hectarage (USDA-
NASS 2009); worth $141 million to the state (NCDA&CS 2009).
Sweetpotato yield and quality are greatly threatened by Palmer amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson), the most troublesome weed in N.C. crops
(Webster 2006). Palmer amaranth can grow in excess of 2 m tall (Sellers et
al. 2003) and produce as many as half a million seeds per plant (Keeley et al.
1987). Palmer amaranth interference studies have been conducted in
agronomic crops, yet the parameters governing competitive interactions
between Palmer amaranth and sweetpotato have never been reported.
Modeling these interactions, particularly as they pertain to sweetpotato yield
and quality loss, is critical in guiding decision making processes of N.C.
growers in implementing a control strategy for this weed. Understanding the
dynamic interactions between Palmer amaranth and sweetpotato will allow
N.C. sweetpotato growers to establish Palmer amaranth density thresholds
that optimize yield, quality, and income potential.
Objective and Hypothesis
Objective: Research was conducted to determine and model the influence of
Palmer amaranth interference on sweetpotato yield and quality.
Hypothesis: Increasing Palmer amaranth densities will contribute to a
reduction in sweetpotato yield and quality.
Results and Discussion
-Palmer amaranth height and shoot dry biomass m-1 displayed a quadratic relationship
with Palmer amaranth density (Figure 1B, 1C) and increased from 177 to 197 cm and 0.6
to 2.2 kg m-1, respectively at 0.5 to 4.1 plants m-1 and decreased from 197 to 188 cm and
2.2 to 1.5 kg m-1, respectively at 4.1 to 6.5 plants m-1.
-Palmer amaranth width and shoot dry biomass plant-1 decreased linearly from 145 to 69
cm and 1.1 to 0.2 kg plant-1, respectively as density increased from 0.5 to 6.5 plants m-1
(Figure 1B, 1C). Massinga et al. (2003) also observed that Palmer amaranth at lower
densities were more branched and those at higher densities grew more upright.
-Sweetpotato yield loss ranged from 56 to 94% for jumbo, 30 to 85% for one, and 36 to
81% for marketable roots as Palmer amaranth densities increased from 0.5 to 6.5 plants
m-1 (Figure 2B). The I parameter estimate for marketable sweetpotato (121%) indicates
the crop is less competitive with Palmer amaranth than peanut- 39% (Burke et al. 2007),
corn- 62% (Massinga 2001), and soybean- 12 to 105% (Bensch et al. 2003).
-Palmer amaranth light interception 6, 10, and 13 wk after planting ranged from 47 to
68%, 46 to 82%, and 42 to 71% as density increased from 0.5 to 6.5 plants m-1 (Figure
3B).
-Sweetpotato yield loss was due primarily to interference by the Palmer amaranth canopy
(Figure 3C) which limited available light for sweetpotato vines to develop and form
storage roots.
Implications for N.C. and Future Research
A Palmer amaranth density of < 0.09 m-1 (1 plant 11 m-1) is required to limit marketable
sweeetpotato yield loss to < 10%. Many N.C. production fields have densities greater than
this threshold. Future research should focus on preemergence control of Palmer amaranth
to limit interference by the weed and maximize sweetpotato yield and quality.Materials and Methods
In 2007 and 2008 ‘Covington’ and ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato slips (stem cuttings)
were transplanted 31 cm apart into five fields with historically high Palmer
amaranth densities. Palmer amaranth was established at densities of 0 (weed-free
check), 0.5, 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 6.5 plants m-1 of crop row and remained season-
long. Palmer amaranth light interception (the difference between ambient light
and light reaching the sweetpotato canopy) was measured using a LiCor line
quantum sensor 6, 10, and 13 weeks after transplanting (WAP). Near the
conclusion of the study, Palmer amaranth height, canopy width, and shoot dry
biomass were measured. Sweetpotatoes were harvested 110 to 121 days after
planting and graded into jumbo, one, canner, and marketable (all grades) roots.
Sweetpotato yield loss was calculated relative to the weed-free check plot in each
replication. All data were subjected to regression analysis and fit to the
appropriate models. Sweetpotato yield loss and Palmer amaranth light
interception were fit to the rectangular hyperbola model (Cousens 1985):
YL = (ID)/[1 + (ID/A)]
where YL is predicted percent sweetpotato yield loss or light interception due to
weed competition, I is percent yield loss or light interception per unit weed
density as density approaches zero, D is weed density, and A is percent yield loss
or light interception as density approaches infinity.
Note: The I parameter is often used as a measure of competitive ability where
lower I values indicate a more competitive species.
Palmer amaranth height and canopy width are measured (A); the plants are then chopped,
placed in a paper bag (D), and dried to obtain shoot dry biomass. The effect of Palmer
amaranth density on plant height and canopy width (B) and shoot dry biomass plant-1 and m-1
of row (C).
Figure 2. Sweetpotato Yield Loss
Sweetpotatoes are dug, graded,
and weighed (A). The effect of
Palmer amaranth density on
sweetpotato yield and quality loss
(B). One, jumbo, and canner
yields (front to back) decrease as
Palmer amaranth density
increases (left to right) (C).
Palmer amaranth shades
sweetpotato vines three weeks after
transplanting (A). The effect of
Palmer amaranth density on light
interception (B). The effect of
Palmer amaranth light interception
on sweetpotato yield loss (C).
Figure 3. Palmer Amaranth Light Interception
Palmer amaranth density (plants m-1 crop row)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
● Jumbo__ __ predicted jumbo R2=0.97
I=259(85) A=100(8)
▪ No.1_____ predicted No.1 R2=0.95
I=86(21) A=100(12)
Marketable
----- predicted marketable R2=0.95
I=121(34) A=90(9)
Sw
eetp
ota
to y
ield
lo
ss (
%) B
A
Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Interference in SweetpotatoStephen L. Meyers, Katie M. Jennings, David W. Monks, and Jonathan R. Schultheis
- Department of Horticultural Science -
Literature Cited: Bensch, C. N., M. J. Horak, and D. Peterson. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37-43. Burke, I. C., M. Schroeder, W. E. Thomas, and J. W. Wilcut. 2007. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol. 21:367-371. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239-252. Keeley, P. E., C. H. Carter, and R. J. Thullen. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth
of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199-204. Massinga, R. A., R. S. Currie, M. J. Horak, and J. Boyer Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202-208. Massinga, R. A., R. S. Currie, and T. P. Trooien. 2003. Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci. 51:523-531. [NCDA & CS] N. C. Dept. of Agr. and Consumer. Services. 2009. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. Raleigh, NC: NC Dept of Agr, p. 82. Sellers, B. A., R. J. Smeda, W. G. Johnson, J. A.
Kending, and M. R. Ellersieck. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:239-333. [USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture- National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey-southern states. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 59:260-277.
Figure 1. Palmer Amaranth Height, Width, and
Shoot Dry Biomass
A
D
A
Jumbo
One
Canner
0 0.5 1.1 1.6 3.3 6.5
Palmer amaranth density (plants m-1 crop row)
C
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Palmer amaranth density (plants m-1 of row)
Sho
ot
dry
bio
mas
s (k
g)
C
Palmer amaranth biomass plant-1
---- predicted biomass plant-1 Y = -0.15x + 1.18 R2 = 0.98
Palmer amaranth biomass m-1
____ predicted biomass m-1 Y = -0.12x2 + 0.95x + 0.19 R2 = 0.99
Palmer amaranth density (plants m-1 of row)
Pal
mer
am
aran
th h
eight
and
wid
th
(cm
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B
Palmer amaranth height
____ predicted height Y = -1.56x2 + 12.85x + 171.02 R2 = 0.65
Palmer amaranth width
---- predicted width Y = -12.67x + 151.21 R2 = 0.94
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
● 6-7 WAP__ __ predicted light interception 6-7 WAP R2=0.59 I=278 (90) A=71 (4)
■ 10 WAP____ predicted light interception 10 WAP R2=0.80 I=197 (69) A=88 (8)
▲ 13-14 WAP
----- predicted light interception 13-14 WAP R2=0.81 I=184 (38) A=76 (4)
Palm
er
am
ara
nth
lig
ht
inte
rcepti
on (
%)
Palmer amaranth density (plants m-1 row)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
● 6-7 WAP__ __ predicted light interception 6-7 WAP R2=0.59 I=278 (90) A=71 (4)
■ 10 WAP____ predicted light interception 10 WAP R2=0.80 I=197 (69) A=88 (8)
▲ 13-14 WAP
----- predicted light interception 13-14 WAP R2=0.81 I=184 (38) A=76 (4)
Palm
er
am
ara
nth
lig
ht
inte
rcepti
on (
%)
Palmer amaranth density (plants m-1 row) B
6 WAP
13 WAP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
● Jumbo__ __ predicted jumbo yield loss Y=1.35x -1.93 R2=0.99
▪ No.1____ predicted No.1 yield loss Y=1.12x - 6.53 R2=0.86
▲ Marketable
---- predicted marketable yield loss Y=1.11x - 4.5 R2=0.93
Palmer amaranth light interception 6 to 7 wk after planting (%)
Sw
eetp
ota
to y
ield
lo
ss (
%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
● Jumbo__ __ predicted jumbo yield loss Y=1.35x -1.93 R2=0.99
▪ No.1____ predicted No.1 yield loss Y=1.12x - 6.53 R2=0.86
▲ Marketable
---- predicted marketable yield loss Y=1.11x - 4.5 R2=0.93
Palmer amaranth light interception 6 to 7 wk after planting (%)
Sw
eetp
ota
to y
ield
lo
ss (
%)
CPalmer amaranth light interception 6 WAP (%)