Critical Weed Interference Periods in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Yield Loss, Dominant Species, and Management Implications in Andean Agroecosystems

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70099/BJ/2025.02.02.10

Keywords:

Weed competition, quinoa yield, Andean agriculture, sustainable weed control, dicots vs. monocots, Chenopodium quinoa, weed population, yield loss, critical period of weed interference, agroecological practices, integrated weed management, crop–weed interaction, quinoa cultivation, dryland farming, weed biodiversity

Abstract

Weed competition is a major biotic constraint in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivation, yet the timing and extent of its impact on yield remain poorly understood. This study quantified the effects of weed interference on quinoa yield and identified dominant weed species across two consecutive growing seasons in the Andean region. We evaluated eight weed management treatments (0 to 105 days after emergence, DAE) using a randomized complete block design. Dicotyledonous species dominated the weed community, including Amaranthus hybridusAmbrosia artemisiifoliaChenopodium album, and the monocot Echinochloa crus-galli. Weed competition caused a drastic 90% yield reduction, plummeting from 1,352.36 kg ha⁻¹ (weed-free) to 11.55 kg ha⁻¹ when weeds remained until crop maturity. We observed critical yield losses when weeds competed beyond 30 DAE, highlighting the importance of early weed control. We also found significant negative correlations between weed biomass and quinoa growth parameters (plant biomass and grain number; P < 0.05). Echinochloa crus-galli and Polygonum aviculare emerged as key competitors, their dominance shifting with seasonal climatic variations. These findings provide the first empirical basis for integrated weed management in Andean quinoa systems, emphasizing targeted control during early phenological stages to mitigate yield losses. This study advances agroecological strategies for sustainable quinoa production in weed-prone environments.

References

1. Abugoch, J. 2009. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): composition chemistry, nutritional, and functional properties. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 58:1-31.

2. Vega-Gálvez, A., Miranda, M., Vergara, J. Uribe, E., Puente, L. y Martínez, E. 2010. Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), an ancient andean grain: A review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90(15):2541-2547.

3. Jacobsen, S. 2003. The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Reviews International 19:167-177.

4. Gonzalez, J., Gallardo, M., Hilal, M., Rosa, M. y Prado, F. 2009. Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to drought and waterlogging stresses: Dry matter partitionin. Botanical Studies 50:35-42.

5. Repo-Carrasco-Valencia, R. y Serna, L. 2001. Quinoa (Chenepodium quinoa Willd.) as a source of dietary fiber and other functional components. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 31(1):225-230.

6. Maughan, P., Bonifacio, A., Coleman, C., Jellen, E., Stevens, M. y Fairbanks, D. 2007. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) C. Kole (Ed.), Pulses, Sugar and Tuber Crops (first ed.), Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, vol. 3, Springer, Berlin pp. 147-158.

7. Chauhan, B., Singh, R., y Mahajan, G. 2012. Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: a review Crop Protection 38:57-65

8. Chauhan, B. y Opeña, J. 2013. Implications of plant geometry and weed control options in designing a low-seeding seed-drill for dry-seeded rice systems. Field Crops Research 144:225-231.

9. Mhlanga, B., Cheesman, S., Maasdorp, B., Muoni, T., Mabasa, S., Mangosho, E., et al. 2015. Weed community responses to rotations with cover crops in maize-based conservation agriculture systems of Zimbabwe. Crop Protection 69:1-8.

10. Swanton, C., Nkoa, R. y Blackshaw, E. 2015. Experimental methods for crop–weed competition studies. Weed Science 63:2-11.

11. Mujica, A., y Canahua, A. 1989. Fases fenológicas del cultivo de la quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). p. 23-27. In Curso taller, fenología de cultivos andinos y uso de la información agrometeorológica. Salcedo, 7-10 August. INIAA, EEZA-ILLPA, PICA, PISA, Puno, Perú.

12. Merino, J., Pedreros, A., Fischer, S. and López, María D. 2019. Critical period of weed interference on total polyphenol content in quinoa. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 79(3), 405-414.

13. Di Rienzo J.A., Casanoves F., Balzarini M.G., Gonzalez L., Tablada M., y Robledo C.W. InfoStat versión 2017. Grupo InfoStat, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.

14 Espinoza, N. 1996. Malezas presentes en Chile. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INIA Carillanca. Temuco, Chile. 219 págs.

15. Pereira. E. (2025) Definición de la densidad de impactos en el control de malezas con herbicida total sistémico. Investigación aplicada en campos de las ciencias agrarias y forestales. Universidad Nacional de la Plata Facultad de ciencias agrarias y forestales. 26 pp.

16. Hurrell, J., Bazzano, D., & Delucchi, G. (2006). Biota Rioplatense X. Mocotiledóneas herbáceas nativas y exóticas. Buenos Aires, República Argentina. 322 pp. ISBN: 950-9725-78-1

17. Hurrell, J. (2006). Biota Rioplatense X. Dicotiledoneas herbáceas nativas y exóticas. Buenos Aires. 288 pp. ISBN 950-9725-92-7

18 Singh, M., Kumar, R., Kumar, S., and Kumar, V. 2016. Critical period for weed control in field pea. Legume Research 39(1):86-90.

19 Chauhan, B. 2013. Shade reduces growth and seed production of Echinochloa colona, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Echinochloa glabrescens. Crop Protection 43:241-245

20 Rao, A., Johnson, D., Sivaprasad, B., Ladha, J. y Mortimer, A. 2007. Weed management in direct-seeded rice. Advances in Agronomy 93:153-255.

21 Juliano, L., Casimero, M. y Llewellyn, R. 2010. Multiple herbicide resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in direct-seeded rice in the Philippines. International Journal of Pest Management 56:299-307.

22 Gallandt, E. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank?. Weed Science 54:588-596.

23 Ottis, B. y Talbert, R. 2007. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.) control and rice density effects on rice yield components. Weed Technology 21:110-118.

24 Clay, S., Kleinjan, J., Clay, D., Forcella, F. y Batchelor, W. 2005. Growth and fecundity of several weed species in corn and soybean. Agronomy journal 97:294-302.

25 Chin, D. 2001. Biology and management of barnyardgrass, red sprangletop and weedy rice. Weed Biology and Management 1:37-41.

26 Batlla, D., 2004. Regulación de los cambios cíclicos en el nivel de dormición de semillas de Polygonum aviculare por efecto de la disponibilidad hídrica y la temperatura del suelo. Un modelo de simulación. Tesis Doctoral. Área Ciencias Agropecuarias. Facultad de Agronomía. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Argentina. Pag. 238.

27 Benech-Arnold, R.. y Sanchez, A. 1995. Modelling weed seed germination. En: Seed development and germination.(Eds J.Kigel, G.Gailili),Pag.545-566.(Marcel Dekker) Inc: New York.

28 Tursun, N., Datta, A., Sami Sakinmaz, M., Kantarci, Z., Knezevic, S., and Singh Chauhan, B. 2016. The critical period for weed control in three corn (Zea mays L.) types. Crop Protection 90:59-65.

29 Ahymadvand, G., Mondani, F., and Golzardi, F. 2009. Effect of crop plant density on critical period of weed competition in potato. Scientia Horticulturae 121:249-254.

30 Zimdahl, R. 2013. Fundamentals of Weed Science. (fourth ed.), Academic Press.

31 Qasem, J. 2009. Weed competition in cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis) in the Jordan Valley. Scientia Horticulturae 121: 255–259.

33 Safdar, M., Tanveer, A., Khaliq, A., and Maqbool, R. 2016. Critical competition period of parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) in maize. Crop Protection 80:101-107.

32 Vasilakoglou, L., and Dhima, K. 2012. Leafy and semi-leafless field pea competition with winter wild oat as affected by weed density. Field Crop Research 126:130-136

34 Akhter, N., Rahman, M., Hasanuzzaman, M., and Nahar, K. 2009. Plant characters and seed yield of garden pea under different light intensity. American-Eurasian Journal of Agronomy 2(3):152-155.

35 Singh, M., Bhullar, M., Bhagirath S., and Chauhan, B. 2014. The critical period for weed control in dry-seeded rice. Crop Protection 66:80-85.

36. Cruz, D., Silva, G., Oliveira, F., Arcanjo, J. y Alves, J. (2009). Levantamento de plantas daninhas em área rotacionada com as culturas da soja, milho e arroz irrigado no cerrado de Roraima. Agroambiente, 3(1), 58-63. doi:10.18227/1982-8470ragro.v3i1.248.

37. Marqués, P., Silva, M., López, S., Correa, P., Araujo, S., Costa, A. y Muniz, H. (2011). Dinámica de populações e fitossociologia de plantas daninhas no cultivo do feijao-caupi e mandioca no sistema corte e queima com o uso de arado. Planta Daninha, 29(Número Especial), 981-989. doi:10.1590/S0100-83582011000500004.

38 Johanns, O. y Contiero, R. (2006). Efeitos de diferentes perÍodos de controle e convivencia de plantas daninhas com a cultura da mandioca. Ci. Agron., 37(3), 326-331. https://ccarevista.ufc.br/seer/index.php/ccarevista/article/view/175.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-15

How to Cite

Merino, J., Pedreros, A., Fischer, S., & López, M. D. (2025). Critical Weed Interference Periods in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Yield Loss, Dominant Species, and Management Implications in Andean Agroecosystems. BioNatura Journal: Ibero-American Journal of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, 2(2), 13. https://doi.org/10.70099/BJ/2025.02.02.10

Issue

Section

Research Articles

Categories