Biotic Stress and Yield Loss

More documents

Recommendations

Info

weeds, Weed Sci., 44, 856, 1996.79. Dingkuhn, M., Johnson, D. E., Sow, A., and Audebert, A. Y., Relationships betweenupland rice canopy characteristics and weed competitiveness, Field Crops Res., 61, 79,1999.80. Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P., Estimation ofcrop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species, Weed Sci., 42, 103, 1994.81. Berti, A., and Zanin, G., Density equivalent: a method for forecasting yield loss caused bymixed weed populations, Weed Res., 34, 327, 1994.82. Brain, P., and Cousens, R., The effect of weed distribution on predictions of yield loss, J.Appl. Ecol., 27, 735, 1990.83. Fischer, D. W., Harvey, R. G., Bauman, T. T., Hart, S. E., Johnson, G. A., Kells, J. J.,Lindquist, J. L., and Westra, P., Effects of Chenopodium album competition with Zea maysin a regional study, Weed Sci. (in review), 2000.84. Gerowitt, B., and Heitefuss, R., Weed economic thresholds in cereals in the FederalRepublic of Germany, Crop Prot., 9, 323, 1990.85. Thomas G. A., Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops,Weed Sci., 33, 34, 1985.86. van Groenendael, J. M., Patchy distribution of weeds and some implications for modellingpopulation dynamics: a short literature review, Weed Res., 28, 437, 1988.87. Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., Young, L. Y., and Martin, A. R., The stability of weedseedling population models and parameters in eastern Nebraska corn (Zea mays) and soybean(Glycine max) fields, Weed Sci., 43, 604, 1995.88. Navas, M. L., Using plant population biology in weed research: a strategy to improveweed management, Weed Res., 31, 171, 1991.89. Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J., Spatial weed distributionand economic thresholds for weed control, Crop Prot., 9, 337, 1990.90. Wiles, L. J., Oliver, G. W., York, A. C., Gold, H. J., and Wilkerson, G. G., Spatial distributionof broadleaf weeds in North Carolina soybean (Glycine max) fields. Weed Sci., 40,554, 1992.91. Auld, B. A., and Tisdell, C. A., Influence of spatial distribution of weeds on crop yield loss,Plant Prot. Quart., 3, 81, 1988.92. Nordbo, E., and Christensen, S., Spatial variability of weeds, in Proceedings of theSeminar on Site Specific Farming, Olesen, S. E., Ed., Danish Institute of Plant and SoilScience, SP-report No. 26, 1995.93. Lindquist, J. L., Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Pester-Wyse, D.Y., Economic importance of managing spatially heterogeneous weed populations, WeedTechnol., 12, 7, 1998.94. Tilman, D., Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: the elements of a predictivetheory of competition, in Perspectives on Plant Competition, Grace, J. B., and Tilman, D.,Eds., Academic Press, San Diego, 1990, chap. 7.95. Lang, A. L., Pendleton, J. W., and Dungan, G. H., Influence of population and nitrogenlevels on yield and protein and oil contents of nine corn hybrids, Agron. J., 48, 1956.
13Mechanisms of Crop LossDue to Weed CompetitionJohn L. LindquistCONTENTS13.1 Introduction13.1.1 Interplant Competition, the Stress Factor13.1.2 Theory of Interplant Competition13.2 Plant Growth and Competition for Light13.3 Competition for Soil Water13.4 Competition for Soil Nitrogen13.5 SummaryReferences13.1 INTRODUCTIONThis book focuses on the effects of biotic stress on crop yield loss. In Chapter 12 weoutlined a number of methods for quantifying the effects of weed interference on cropyield. In this context, it was important to use the term interference because experimentsdesigned to show a relationship between crop yield and weed population densityhave not typically included methods of evaluating the cause of any observedyield reduction. In other words, although the yield reduction was likely caused bystress, the cause of that stress is unknown. It is possible that the loss was causedbecause the weed species under study acted as a trap crop for insects that subsequentlycaused stress through, for example, defoliation. Granted, most researchersinterested in the effects of the weed would manage their experiment to eliminate suchfactors. However, the point is that if the stress was not quantified, it is impossible tosay what actually caused the observed crop loss. Therefore, questions that need to beaddressed include (1) how do weeds cause stress, and (2) how do we quantify theinfluence of this stress on crop yield?In this chapter, I focus on the mechanisms of interplant competition. The definitionof competition used here is resource dependent, whereas others include phenomenasuch as allelopathy and some forms of symbiotic relationships. 1–3 Theseconcepts are considered beyond the scope of this chapter. Several authors have discussedthe importance of growth determining or limiting resources to crop–weed
Page 2 and 3:
Biotic Stressand Yield Loss
Page 4 and 5:
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-P
Page 6 and 7:
PrefaceThe idea for this book came
Page 8 and 9:
EditorsRobert K. D. Peterson, Ph.D.
Page 10 and 11:
ContentsChapter 1Illuminating the B
Page 12 and 13:
1Illuminating the Black Box:The Rel
Page 14 and 15:
increase plant tolerance, through p
Page 16 and 17:
the action of a stressor on a plant
Page 18 and 19:
The magnitude and duration of injur
Page 20 and 21:
Plant part injuredrefers to the pla
Page 22 and 23:
cific competition, while agricultur
Page 24 and 25:
2Yield Loss and PestManagementLeon
Page 26 and 27:
direct relationships between the ac
Page 28 and 29:
In keeping with the theme of this b
Page 30 and 31:
egressions. Actually, the title “
Page 32 and 33:
REFERENCES1. Teng, P. S., Crop Loss
Page 34 and 35:
3Techniques for EvaluatingYield Los
Page 36 and 37:
number of species and stage of cutw
Page 38 and 39:
especially if buried in soil, can d
Page 40 and 41:
elationships for some pests. When m
Page 42 and 43:
injury can be precisely controlled
Page 44 and 45:
day. 81, 99 However, except for an
Page 46 and 47:
the literature most likely are actu
Page 48 and 49:
20. Ba-Angood, S. A., and Stewart,
Page 50 and 51:
60. Stewart, J. G., McRae, K. B., a
Page 52 and 53:
99. Shields, E. J., and Wyman, J. A
Page 54 and 55:
4.3.3.1.3 Third generation European
Page 56 and 57:
ing on the developmental stage at t
Page 58 and 59:
4.2.2.1.2 Temperature stressPlant s
Page 60 and 61:
chronic injury. Acute injury result
Page 62 and 63:
ows, roadsides, or small grain fiel
Page 64 and 65:
numbers are present. Stink bugs, Eu
Page 66 and 67:
Oligonychus pratensis, feed on corn
Page 68 and 69:
ECB2. 224.3.3.1.4 The impacts of Eu
Page 70 and 71:
stalk borer, Papaipema nebris, is a
Page 72 and 73:
period prolonged with sufficient co
Page 74 and 75:
Arthropod injuries to developing ea
Page 76 and 77:
esponses to herbivory have been obs
Page 78 and 79:
Midwest, Purdue University CES and
Page 80 and 81:
59. Bailey, W. C., and Pedigo, L. P
Page 82 and 83:
5Phenological Disruptionand Yield L
Page 84 and 85:
ity by animal consumers is the agro
Page 86 and 87:
ously, structural components (e.g.,
Page 88 and 89:
FIGURE 5.2 Generalized alfalfa grow
Page 90 and 91:
601, 1972.9. Gordon, C. H., Derbysh
Page 92 and 93:
do we know about how biotic stresso
Page 94 and 95:
ing both large and small leaf veins
Page 96 and 97:
population. Whole plants may respon
Page 98 and 99:
temporally and spatially, are more
Page 100 and 101:
some systems have allowed for a tra
Page 102 and 103:
injury guilds would center on the f
Page 104 and 105:
apple leaves, HortScience, 19, 815,
Page 106 and 107:
7The Influence of Cultivarand Plant
Page 108 and 109:
unit ground area, and it indicates
Page 110 and 111:
without considering plant architect
Page 112 and 113:
photosynthesis. Regardless of the n
Page 114 and 115:
light interception. 45 Skeletonizin
Page 116 and 117:
Light interception, which intrinsic
Page 118 and 119:
var. Consequently, use of a single
Page 120 and 121:
19. Jarosik, V., Phytoseiulus persi
Page 122 and 123:
62. Caviness, C. E., Registration o
Page 124 and 125:
8Drought Stress, Insects,and Yield
Page 126 and 127:
humidity. Because the relative humi
Page 128 and 129:
temperature and precipitation. Prop
Page 130 and 131:
compared to well watered soybeans.
Page 132 and 133:
Changes in plant hormones, such as
Page 134 and 135:
plays a key role in promoting plant
Page 136 and 137:
In soybeans, a leaf area index (LAI
Page 138 and 139:
15. Schulze, E. D., Water and nutri
Page 140 and 141:
52. Meyer W. S., and Walker, S., Le
Page 142 and 143:
9The Impact of Herbivoryon Plants:
Page 144 and 145:
conditions of stress are themselves
Page 146 and 147:
are common, defenses to avoid herbi
Page 148 and 149:
plant tissue, resulting in gall for
Page 150 and 151:
found on cucumbers in polycultures
Page 152 and 153:
compensatory response. Also, more v
Page 154 and 155:
Costa Rica, and there are several g
Page 156 and 157:
ivory from white cabbage butterfly
Page 158 and 159:
made, while larger vertebrate herbi
Page 160 and 161:
important consequences to plant fit
Page 162 and 163:
de Entomol., 38, 421, 1994.32. Kare
Page 164 and 165:
chlorophyll content in spider mite
Page 166 and 167:
114. Karban, R., and Strauss, S.Y.,
Page 168 and 169:
10Stephen C. WelterCONTENTSContrast
Page 170 and 171:
Although literature is drawn from a
Page 172 and 173:
and wheat acres receiving some type
Page 174 and 175:
pattern to be true. 109 Because rel
Page 176 and 177:
used in the experiment influenced t
Page 178 and 179:
artificially elevated nitrogen leve
Page 180 and 181:
annual, landrace cultivars, or mode
Page 182 and 183:
settings are coupled with genotype
Page 184 and 185:
10. Kennedy, G. G., and Barbour, J.
Page 186 and 187:
53. Panda, N., and Heinrichs, E. A.
Page 188 and 189: 97. Gross, K. L., and Soule, J. D.,
Page 190 and 191: 143. Davidson, J. L., and Milthorpe
Page 192 and 193: 11Crop Disease andYield LossBrian D
Page 194 and 195: The conditions listed above are opt
Page 196 and 197: to associate the effects of disease
Page 198 and 199: general relationship between LAI an
Page 200 and 201: Biomassproduction(total dryweight)R
Page 202 and 203: Y RUE(t)RI(t)[1 X]dt [11.12]wher
Page 204 and 205: sue. The most accurate prediction o
Page 206 and 207: tion. Two weeks before harvest, the
Page 208 and 209: 15. Spitters, C. J. T., Van Roermun
Page 210 and 211: 57. Richardson, A. J., Wiegand, C.
Page 212 and 213: they were cheap, convenient, and ef
Page 214 and 215: dW / W dtcauses and consequences of
Page 216 and 217: (a)(b)Maize yield (Mg ha -1 )987654
Page 218 and 219: Recall that c is a constant, so by
Page 220 and 221: where the subscripts c and w repres
Page 222 and 223: 0.6Fraction yield loss0.40.2Eq. 16,
Page 224 and 225: the leaf area index (LAI). Incorpor
Page 226 and 227: can no longer be tolerated and, the
Page 228 and 229: cide. Steckel et al. 68 showed that
Page 230 and 231: A eq ∑ jN eq,ji 1YL n,j [12.31]1
Page 232 and 233: samples per field. Thomas 85 sugges
Page 234 and 235: external factors such as annual wea
Page 236 and 237: 38. Boznic, A. C., and Swanton, C.
Page 240 and 241: competition and weed management. 3-
Page 242 and 243: per unit biomass (1/W i)(dW i/dt) o
Page 244 and 245: of light interception). Algorithms
Page 246 and 247: where G a,iis the water limited pla
Page 248 and 249: 13.4 COMPETITION FOR SOIL NITROGENA
Page 250 and 251: As with soil water, Equations 13.10
Page 252 and 253: partitioning of nitrogen to leaves.
Page 254 and 255: and stems to optimize photosyntheti
Page 256 and 257: influence of enhanced UV-B conditio
Page 258 and 259: Systems Approaches at the Field Lev
show all

Biotic Stress and Yield Loss

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?