volume 20 issue 3 (september 2000) : 141-145

COMPARATIVE RESPONSE OF CHROMOLAENA ODORATA AND CORCHORUS OLITORIUS TO INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION

M
Muphtha A.K. Smith
1Department of Crop Production, The Federal ~n1wrsity of Technology, P.M.B.-704, Akure, Nigeria
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Smith A.K. Muphtha (2025). COMPARATIVE RESPONSE OF CHROMOLAENA ODORATA AND CORCHORUS OLITORIUS TO INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION. Agricultural Science Digest. 20(3): 141-145. doi: .
Chromolaena odorata and Corchorus oUtorius were grown at 5, 10, 15 and 20 plants/pot
to evaluate the response of individual plants to intraspecific competition after 10 weeks. Both
spedes showed considerable plasticity in plant height, root dry matter production and biomass
partitioning but competitive effects were significant in respect of leaf production, leaf area and
photosynthetic effidepcy (as indicated by LAR). Competitive effects were also significant with
respe!=i to shoot and total dry weights and individual plant weight (weight per plant) in C.
oIitor/us. The reduction in leaf area was greater with increasing plant density in C. ooorata whiie
C. oUtor/us showed greater reductions in leaf production and LAR. Weight per plant was reduced
significantly by 0.56 g for eacllunit increase in plant density for both species. Differences
in plant response to intraspedfic competition were dueto growth habit and physiology. These
differences have practical implications on population regulation and relative competitive ability
of these two weeds in cropping situations.
    1. Akobundu, 1.0. (1987). Weed Science in the Tropics: Principles and Practices. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
    2. Deschenes, J.M. (1973). Can. J. Bot. 52 : 1415-1421.
    3. HoIId;ay, R. (1960). Natu~(London) 186 : 22-24.
    4. 1remIren, G.O. (1987). Exp. Agric. 23 : 1-7.
    5. OIadokun. MAO. (1978). Weed Sci. 26 : 713-718.
    6. ParnbIad; I.G. (1968). Ecology, 49: 26-34.
    7. RIsser, P.G. (1969). Bot. Rev. 35 : 251-254.
    volume 20 issue 3 (september 2000) : 141-145

    COMPARATIVE RESPONSE OF CHROMOLAENA ODORATA AND CORCHORUS OLITORIUS TO INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION

    M
    Muphtha A.K. Smith
    1Department of Crop Production, The Federal ~n1wrsity of Technology, P.M.B.-704, Akure, Nigeria
    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- Smith A.K. Muphtha (2025). COMPARATIVE RESPONSE OF CHROMOLAENA ODORATA AND CORCHORUS OLITORIUS TO INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION. Agricultural Science Digest. 20(3): 141-145. doi: .
    Chromolaena odorata and Corchorus oUtorius were grown at 5, 10, 15 and 20 plants/pot
    to evaluate the response of individual plants to intraspecific competition after 10 weeks. Both
    spedes showed considerable plasticity in plant height, root dry matter production and biomass
    partitioning but competitive effects were significant in respect of leaf production, leaf area and
    photosynthetic effidepcy (as indicated by LAR). Competitive effects were also significant with
    respe!=i to shoot and total dry weights and individual plant weight (weight per plant) in C.
    oIitor/us. The reduction in leaf area was greater with increasing plant density in C. ooorata whiie
    C. oUtor/us showed greater reductions in leaf production and LAR. Weight per plant was reduced
    significantly by 0.56 g for eacllunit increase in plant density for both species. Differences
    in plant response to intraspedfic competition were dueto growth habit and physiology. These
    differences have practical implications on population regulation and relative competitive ability
    of these two weeds in cropping situations.
      1. Akobundu, 1.0. (1987). Weed Science in the Tropics: Principles and Practices. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
      2. Deschenes, J.M. (1973). Can. J. Bot. 52 : 1415-1421.
      3. HoIId;ay, R. (1960). Natu~(London) 186 : 22-24.
      4. 1remIren, G.O. (1987). Exp. Agric. 23 : 1-7.
      5. OIadokun. MAO. (1978). Weed Sci. 26 : 713-718.
      6. ParnbIad; I.G. (1968). Ecology, 49: 26-34.
      7. RIsser, P.G. (1969). Bot. Rev. 35 : 251-254.
      In this Article
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)