Above- and Below-ground Competition between Chenopodium album and Sugar Beet

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

The effects of above and below-ground competition between Chenopodium album and sugar beet (Beta Vulgaris) on growth, yield and quality of two sugar beet cultivars of morphologically contrasting growth habit have been investigated A factorial experiment (2 × 4) under glass-house conditions in a randomised complete block design with three replications was done. C. album and two sugar beet cultivars ‘Amethyst’ and ‘Celt’, were subjected to one of four competition regimes as follows: two below-ground competition treatments (± root competition); two above-ground competition treatments (± shoot competition). Two seedlings of sugar beet and four of C. album were transplanted at cotyledon stage in plastic pots (44 cm diameter and 35 cm deep). Plants were harvested 8 (12 leaf stage) and 16 (22 leaf stage) weeks after transplanting (WAT). At each harvest, leaf chlorophyll content, plant height, leaf area and shoot and root dry matter of sugar beet and C. album were Correspondence to : M. Abdollahian-Noghabi, E-mail: Noghabi@yahoo.com M. Abdollahian & R.J. Froud-Williams   6   determined. The results demonstrated that there were major differences between growth and yield of the two sugar beet cultivars which were influenced by both above and below-ground competition with C. album. No interactions were observed between beet cultivar and the competition regime, but shoot and root competition inter-acted negatively 8 and 16 WAT. Both sugar beet shoot and root yield were reduced by shoot and root competition with C. album 8 and 16 WAT. However, beet sugar content was unaffected by weed competition regimes. Root competition with C. album caused greater reduction of shoot and root yield of sugar beet than shoot competition 16 WAT. However, there was no significant difference between shoot and root competition 8 WAT. Yield loss of sugar beet subject to shoot and root competition with C. album was 47 and 82% respectively. Thus, under these conditions, the effect of C .album competition for above-ground resources was less than that for below-ground resources during a period up to 16 WAT The effects of above and below-ground competition between Chenopodium album and sugar beet (Beta Vulgaris) on growth, yield and quality of two sugar beet cultivars of morphologically contrasting growth habit have been investigated A factorial experiment (2 × 4) under glass-house conditions in a randomised complete block design with three replications was done. C. album and two sugar beet cultivars ‘Amethyst’ and ‘Celt’, were subjected to one of four competition regimes as follows: two below-ground competition treatments (± root competition); two above-ground competition treatments (± shoot competition). Two seedlings of sugar beet and four of C. album were transplanted at cotyledon stage in plastic pots (44 cm diameter and 35 cm deep). Plants were harvested 8 (12 leaf stage) and 16 (22 leaf stage) weeks after transplanting (WAT). At each harvest, leaf chlorophyll content, plant height, leaf area and shoot and root dry matter of sugar beet and C. album were Correspondence to : M. Abdollahian-Noghabi, E-mail: Noghabi@yahoo.com M. Abdollahian & R.J. Froud-Williams 6 determined. The results demonstrated that there were major differences between growth and yield of the two sugar beet cultivars which were influenced by both above and below-ground competition with C. album. No interactions were observed between beet cultivar and the competition regime, but shoot and root competition inter-acted negatively 8 and 16 WAT. Both sugar beet shoot and root yield were reduced by shoot and root competition with C. album 8 and 16 WAT. However, beet sugar content was unaffected by weed competition regimes. Root competition with C. album caused greater reduction of shoot and root yield of sugar beet than shoot competition 16 WAT. However, there was no significant difference between shoot and root competition 8 WAT. Yield loss of sugar beet subject to shoot and root competition with C. album was 47 and 82% respectively. Thus, under these conditions, the effect of C .album competition for above-ground resources was less than that for below-ground resources during a period up to 16 WAT

Keywords

References

Aspinall, D. 1960. An analysis of competition between barley and white persicaria.
 
Annals of Applied Biology
48, 637-654.
Clements, F.E., Weaver, J.E. & Hauson, H.C. 1929. Plant Competition: An Analysis of
Community Functions. Washington DC: Carnegi Institute.
De Wit, C.T. 1960. On competition.
Verslagen van Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen
66
, 1-82.
Donald, C.M. 1958. The interaction of competition for light and nutrients.
Australian
Journal of Agricultural Research
9, 421-435.
Donald, C.M. 1963. Competition among crop and pasture plants.
Advances in
Agronomy
15, 1-118.
Farahbakhsh, A. & Murphy, K.J. 1986. Comparative studies of weed competition in
sugar beet.
Aspects of Applied Biology 13, 11-16.
Froud-Williams, R.J. 1992. Weed competition in sugar beet: A practical experiment in
applied plant sciences for use in schools
. Aspects of Applied Biology 32,125-128.
Graan, T. & Ort, D.R. 1984. Quantitation of the rapid electron donors to P 700, the
functional plastoquinone pool, and the ratio of the photosystems in spinach
chloroplast.
Journal of Biological Chemistry 259, 14003-14010.
Holm, L.G., Plucknett, D.L., Pancho, J.V. & Herberger, J.P. 1977. The World's Worst
Weeds
: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Houghton, S.K. 1996. Effect of elevated carbon-dioxide concentration and temperature
on the growth and competition between sugar beet (
Beta vulgaris) and fat-hen
(
Chenopodium album). Aspects of Applied Biology 45, 197-204.
King, J. 1971. Competition between established and newly sown grass species.
Journal
of the British Grassland Society
26, 221-229.
Lotz, L.A.P., Groeneveld, R.M.W. & de Groot, N.A. M.A. 1991. Potential for reducing
herbicide inputs in sugar beet by selecting early closing cultivars. Proceedings of
Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds.
Martin, M.P.L.D. & Field, R.J. 1984. The nature of competition between perennial
ryegrass and white clover.
Grass and Forage Science 39, 247-253.
Pozsgai, J. 1983. Competition between sugar beet and its major weeds. I. Shoot-, rootand
full competition.
Novenytermeles 32, 29-36.
Radosevich, S.R. & Holt, J.S. 1984. Weed Ecology, Implications for Vegetation
Management
. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Remison, S.U. & Snaydon, R.W. 1980a. Effects of defoliation and fertilisers on root
competition between Dactylis glomerata and Lolium perenne.
Grass and Forage
Science
35, 81-93.
Remison, S.U. & Snaydon, R.W. 1980b. A comparison of root competition and shoot
competition between Dactylis glomerata and Holcus lanatus.
Grass and Forage
Science
35, 183-187.
M. Abdollahian & R.J. Froud-Williams
 
18
 
Schweizer, E.E. & Dexter, A.G. 1987. Weed control in sugarbeets (
Beta vulgaris) in
north America. In:
Reviews of Weed Science (L. F. Chester, ed), 113-133.
Champaign: Weed Science Society of America.
Schweizer, E.E. & May, M.J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. In:
The Sugar Beet
Crop: Science into Practice
(D. A. Cooke & R. K. Scott, eds), 485-519. London
Chapman & Hall.
Scott, R.K. & Wilcockson, S.J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet.
 
Annals of Applied Biology
83, 331-335.
Tofinga, M.P., Paolini, R. & Snaydon, R.W. 1993. A study of root and shoot
interactions between cereals and peas in mixtures.
Journal of Agricultural Science,
Cambridge
120, 13-24.
Ulrich, A. 1959. Effect of competition on sugar beet plants in pot experiments.
Journal
of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists
10, 448-458.
Ulrich, A. 1961. Variability of sugar beet plants growing in pots without competition for
light, water and nutrients.
Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet
Technologists,
XI, 595-604.
Wilson, J.B. 1988. Shoot competition and root competition.
Journal of Applied
Ecology
25, 279-296.
Call Paper
 
The First Symposium of
 
Iranian Weed Science
 
25-26 January 2005
 
Plant Pest & Disease Research Institute
 
Tehran, Iran
 
www.ppdri.ac.ir/ISWS
 
Iranian Journal of Weed Science
Volume 1, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
No 1 & 2
September 2005
Pages 5-18

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics