Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 137–144 | Cite as

Interactions of two species of the genusChenopodium with two production plants—Sugar beet and spring wheat

  • Tomáš Frantík
  • Pavel Kovář
  • Jiří Dostálek
  • Helena Koblihová
  • Hana Stejskalová


TwoChenopodium species (C. album L.,C. suecicum J. Murr) were grown under field conditions with sugar beet to assess the weed-caused crop loss, and with spring wheat in a replacement series experiment. The weeds strongly reduced the growth of sugar beet. Dew's competition indexes for the regressions of sugar beet yield on weed density were 6.81 and 3.78 forC. suecicum andC. album respectively. On the other hand, the yield of spring wheat was not affected by the twoChenopodium species owing to early shading of the weeds by the faster growing crop stand.


Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium suecicumJ. Murr Sugar beet Spring wheat Interaction Index of competition Replacement series experiment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Assemat L. (1986): Fan designs and weed competition studies—Proc. EWRS Symp. 1986, Economic Weed Control, 69–74.Google Scholar
  2. Bergh J. P. etBraakhekke W. G. (1978): Coexistence of plant species by niche differentiation.— In:Freysen A. H. J. etWoldendorf J. W. [eds.]: Structure and functioning of plant populations, p. 125–138.—Amsterdam, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Brimhall P. B., Chamberlein E. W. etAlley H. P. (1965): Competition of annual weeds and sugar beets.—Weeds, Urbana, 13: 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson H. L. etHill J. E. (1985): Wild oat competition with spring wheat: Plant density effects. —Weed Sci. 33: 176–181.Google Scholar
  5. Dawson J. H. (1965): Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds.—Weeds, Urbana, 13: 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dew D. A. (1972): An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds.—Can. J. Plant. Sci, Ottawa, 52: 921–927.Google Scholar
  7. Dostálek J. (1985): Určování druhů rodu Chenopodium z ČSR.—Zpr. Čs. Bot. Společ., Praha, 20: 161–177.Google Scholar
  8. Heemst H. D. J. (1985): The influence of weed competition on crop yield.—Agricultural Systems, 18: 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koblihová H., Frantík, T., Kovář P., Dostálek J. etStejskalová H. (1987): Interakce vybraných druhů roduChenopodium s jarní pšenicí.—Preslia, Praha, 59: 341–348.Google Scholar
  10. Kolar J. S., Bains D. S. etGill G. S. (1976): Competition between wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) andChenopodium album L. under varying levels of soil moisture, nitrogen and weed intensities.—Indian J. Ecol., 3: 28–37.Google Scholar
  11. Kolar J. S. (1980): Studies on competitive ability of wheat andChenopodium album L.—Indian J. Ecol., 7: 308–310.Google Scholar
  12. Kolar J. S., Bains D. S. etGill G. S. (1977): Competition between wheat andChenopodium album L.—the effect of weed removal at different stages of crop growth.—Indian J. Ecol., 4: 66–70.Google Scholar
  13. Kolar J. S., Kang C. S. etSandhu K. S. (1979): Studies on competition between some Rabi crops andChenopodium album L.—Indian J. Ecol., 6: 61–67.Google Scholar
  14. Martin M. P. L. D. (1984): Interference of fathen (Chenopodium album) with lucerne (Medicago sativa) during establishment.—New Zealand J. Agric. Res., 27: 594–596.Google Scholar
  15. Medd R. W., Auld B. A., Kemp D. R. etMurison R. D. (1985): The influence of wheat density and spatial arrangement of annual ryegrass,Lolium riaidum Gaudin, competition.—Austr. J. Agric. Res., 36: 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maravcová L. etDostálek J. (1989): Contribution to biology of four species ofChenopodium album agg.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 24: 431–439.Google Scholar
  17. Pearcy R. W., Tumosa N. etWilliams K. (1981): Relationships between growth, photosynthesis and competitive interactions for a C3 and C4 plant.—Oecologia, Berlin, 48: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pozsgai J. (1983): A cukorrépa és föbb gyomnövényei közötti kompetíció. I. Hajtás-, gyökér- és teljes kompetíció.—Növenytermelés, 32: 29–36.Google Scholar
  19. Poszgai J. (1984a): A cukorrépa és föbb gyomnövényei közötti kompetíció. II. A termésveszteség biológiai összatevöi és a kompetició kritikus periódusa.—Növenytermelés, 33: 27–40.Google Scholar
  20. Pozsgai J. (1984b): AzAmaranthus retroflexus L. és aChenopodium album L. kritikus sürüsége cukorrépában.—Növenytermelés, 33: 139–145.Google Scholar
  21. Radosevich S. R. etHolt J. S. (1984): Weed ecology.—New York.Google Scholar
  22. Raitikainen M. etRaitikainen T. (1983): Syysoehnän viljelystä sen vaikutuksesta rikkaruohoihin Suomessa.—J. Sci. Agric. Soc. of Finland, 55: 385–423.Google Scholar
  23. Schäufele W. R. etWinner C. (1977): Untersuchungen über den Einfluss einer Unkrautkonkurrenz auf Zuckerrüben.—Z. f. Pflanzenkrankheiten u. Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft VII, 1977: 69–77.Google Scholar
  24. Torssell B. W. R., Ive J. R. etCunningham R. B. (1976): Competition and population dynamics in legume-grass swards withStylosanthes hamata (L.)Torb. (sens. lat.) andStylosanthes humilis (H. B. K.),—Austr. J. Agric. Res., 27: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tuchlenski M. (1984): Chwasty jedno- i dwuliścienne w uprawie buraków cukrowych.—Gazeta Cukrownicza, 1984: 18–19.Google Scholar
  26. Welbank P. J. (1960): Competition between crop and weds.—Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1959, Harpenden, 83–84.Google Scholar
  27. Williams J. T. (1963): Biological flora of the British Isles.Chenopodium album L.—J. Ecol., Oxford, 51: 711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams J. T. (1964): A study of competitive ability ofChenopodium album.—Weed Res. 4: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Winter S. R. etWiese A. F. (1976): Competition of annual weeds and sugar beet.—J. Americ. Soc. of Sugar Beet Technologist, 19: 125–129.Google Scholar
  30. Witt de C. T. (1960): On competition.—Versl. Landbouwk. Onderzoek, Wageningen, 66: 1–82.Google Scholar
  31. Zimdahl R. L. (1980): Weed—crop competition. A review.—Corvallis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Frantík
    • 1
  • Pavel Kovář
    • 1
  • Jiří Dostálek
    • 1
  • Helena Koblihová
    • 1
  • Hana Stejskalová
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of BotanyCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPrůhoniceCzechoslovakia

Personalised recommendations