Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:19:21.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and growth of six cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes, sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Guangyao Wang ,
Milton E. McGiffen Jr.  and
Jeff D. Ehlers
Guangyao Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Jeff D. Ehlers
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Varietal growth habit could play a key role in the competitiveness of crop plants with weeds. The relative competitiveness of two erect, two semierect, and two prostrate cowpea genotypes with a tall-growing (common sunflower) or a low-growing (common purslane) species was evaluated in 12 replacement-series experiments conducted in 2003 and 2004. Growth analysis of the six cowpea genotypes and two weed species were also conducted to investigate the relationship of competitiveness and growth. Cowpea genotype and competitor biomass were used to calculate relative yield total (RYT) and aggressivity indices (AI). RYT and AI means of six cowpea genotypes were compared using ANOVA, and an isotonic regression was used to confirm the relative competitive superiority of the cowpea growth types. All cowpea genotypes had similar RYTs when grown with sunflower or common purslane, indicating that cowpea used the same resources as sunflower or purslane. When grown with sunflower, erect and semierect genotypes had higher AI than prostrate genotypes. When grown with purslane, erect and prostrate genotypes had higher AI than semierect genotypes. The results were confirmed by isotonic regression tests on the respective AI order. Correlation and regression between AI and growth parameters showed that the relative growth rate (RGR), leaf area ratio (LAR), and height growth rate (HGR) explained 92% of the variation of AI when cowpeas were grown with sunflower and that leaf weight ratio (LWR) and biomass explained 82% of the variation of AI when cowpeas were grown with purslane. These experiments indicate that cowpea genotypes differ in their ability to compete with purslane or sunflower. Erect genotypes were the most competitive, suggesting that an erect growth habit may be more effective in suppressing weeds than a semierect or prostrate growth habit. These results are consistent with field experiments on the competitiveness of erect, semierect, and prostrate cowpea genotypes.

Keywords

Common purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLcommon sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. HELANcowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. ‘California Blackeye 5’, ‘Iron-Clay’, ‘Speckle Purple Hull’, ‘IT89KD-288’, ‘UCR 730’, and ‘UCR 779’ VIGSICover cropgrowth habitinterspecific competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , October 2006 , pp. 954 - 960
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

Akey, W. C., Jurik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1991. A replacement series evaluation of competition between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 31:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, A. 1988. Competition for resources in weed–crop mixtures. Pages 89–119 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7:169–180.Google Scholar
Challaiah, , Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Johnson, V. A. 1986. Competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 34:689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiariello, N. R., Mooney, H. A., and Williams, K. 1991. Growth, carbon allocation and cost of plant tissues. Pages 327–334 in Pearcy, R. W., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., and Rundel, P. W. eds. Plant Physiological Ecology: Field Methods and Instrumentation. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop–weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34:29–37.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. 1986. On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:125–137.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and O'Neill, M. 1993. Density dependence of replacement series experiments. Oikos. 66:347–352.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G. and Baldwin, K. R. 2000. An evaluation of summer cover crops for use in vegetable production systems in North Carolina. Hortscience. 35:600–603.Google Scholar
Danso, S. K., Labandera, C., Pastorini, D., and Curbelo, S. 1991. Herbage yield and nitrogen fixation in a triple species mixed sward of white clover, lotus and fescue. Soil Biol. Biochem. 23:65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Page 8 in Agricultural Research Reports 66. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (PUDOC).Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. D. 1984. Assessment and utilization of exotic cowpea germplasm to improve blackeye pea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. , University of California, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. D., Fery, R. L., and Hall, A. E. 2002. Cowpea breeding in the USA: new varieties and improved germplasm. Pages 62–77 in Fatokun, C. A., Tarawali, S. A., Singh, B. B., Kormawa, P. M., and Tamo, M. eds. Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency of the United States. 1999. Pesticides industry sales and usage: 1998 and 1999 market estimates. www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/99pestsales/market_estimates1999.pdf.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503–517.Google Scholar
Guneyli, E., Burnside, O. C., and Nordquist, P. T. 1969. Influence of seedling characteristics on weed competitive ability of sorghum hybrids and inbreed lines. Crop Sci. 9:713–716.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E. 2001. Crop developmental responses to temperature, photoperiod, and light quality. Pages 83–87 in Hall, A. E. ed. Crop Response to Environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartwig, N. L. and Ammon, H. U. 2002. 50th anniversary—invited article: cover crop and living mulches. Weed Sci. 50:688–699.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39:575–584.Google Scholar
Hutchison, C. M. and McGiffen, M. E. 2000. Cowpea cover crop mulch for weed control in desert pepper production. Hortscience. 35:196–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A. 2000. The replacement series. J. Ecol. 88:371–385.Google Scholar
Kawano, K., Gonzalez, H., and Lucena, M. 1974. Intraspecific competition, competition with weeds, and spacing response in rice. Crop Sci. 14:841–845.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci. 44:634–639.Google Scholar
Matkin, O. A. and Chandler, P. A. 1957. The U.C. soil type mixes: the U.C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants. Pages 68–85 in Baker, K. F. ed. California Agricultural Experiment Station Manual 23. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. C., Ehlers, J. D., Graves, W., Roberts, P. A., and Samons, J. V. 1998. Use of resistant cover-crop cowpeas in crop rotations to reduce levels of root-knot nematode. Page 114. in Annual Meeting Abstracts. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Mead, R. 1979. Competition experiments. Biometrics. 35:41–54.Google Scholar
Nangju, D. 1978. Effect of plant density, spatial arrangement, and plant type on weed control in cowpea and soybean. Pages 288–299 in Akobundu, I. O. ed. Weeds and Their Control in the Humid and Subhumid Tropics. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1992. Have ecological and biological studies improved weed control strategies?. Pages 7–33 in Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress. Melbourne, Australia: Weed Science Society of Victoria.Google Scholar
Power, J. F. and Koerner, P. T. 1994. Cover crop production from several planting and harvest dates in eastern Nebraska. Agron. J. 86:1092–1097.Google Scholar
Remison, S. U. 1978. The performance of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] as influenced by weed competition. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 90:523–530.Google Scholar
Robertson, T., Wright, F. T., and Dykstra, R. L. 1988. Order Restricted Statistical Inference. New York: J. Wiley Pp 8–10, 59–86.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. G. 1971. Sunflower phenology—year, variety, and date of planting effects on day and growing degree–day summations. Crop Sci. 11:635–638.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, S. N. 1957. A heuristic class of tests. Pages 5–12 in Some Aspects of Multivariate Analysis. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Wang, G., Ehlers, J. D., Ogbuchiekwe, E. J., Yang, S., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2004. Competitiveness of erect, semi-erect, and prostrate cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes with sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci. 52:97–102.Google Scholar
Wickes, G. A., Nordquist, P. T., Hanson, G. E., and Schmidt, J. W. 1994. Influence of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars on weed control in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:27–34.Google Scholar
Zalom, F. G., Goodell, P. B., Wilson, L. T., Barnett, W. W., and Bentley, W. J. 1983. Degree–days: The Calculation and Use of Heat Units in Pest Management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Leaflet 21373, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C. A. 1977. A comparison of breeding systems and seed physiologies in three species of Portulaca L. Ecology. 58:860–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar