© Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Travlos
et al.
44
Table 3.
Forage yield of three alfalfa cultivars (Gea, Dimitra, Hyliki) (dry weight in tn/ha) with
the presence of
Solanum elaeagnifolium
and under a weed-free situation in a two-year field
experiment (2010, 2011). Each number represents the mean yield of a cultivar per cutting or
the total mean yield of a cultivar in 2010. In parentheses the corresponding values for 2011
are also shown.
With
S. elaeagnifolium
Gea
Dimitra
Hyliki
Cuttings
Dry weight (tn/ha)
65 DAT
2.84 (3.3) b
3.35 (3.89) a
3.66 (4.04) a
100 DAT
1.88 (2.2) d
2.49 (2.63) cd
2.81 (3.09) c
145 DAT
1.67 (1.88) f
2.21 (2.29) ef
2.58 (2.82) e
210 DAT
2.55 (3.01) h
2.91 (3.04) h
3.36 (3.61) g
Total
8.94(10.39) k
10.96 (11.85) j
12.41 (13.56) i
Without weeds
Gea
Dimitra
Hyliki
Cuttings
Dry weight (tn/ha)
65 DAT
3.72 (3.98) m
4.36 (4.14) l
4.21 (4.29) l
100 DAT
2.66 (2.82) o
2.97 (3.13) no
3.52 (3.38) n
145 DAT
2.35 (2.42) q
2.43 (2.77) q
3.05 (3.25) p
210 DAT
3.38 (3.44) rs
3.15 (3.3) s
3.71 (3.82) r
Total
12.11 (12.66) u
12.91 (13.34) tu
14.49 (14.74) t
Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different (
p
< 0.05) according to Fischer’s LSD
test.
Table 2.
Analysis of variance for alfalfa cultivar (A), presence of
Solanum elaeagnifolium
(S),
and year (Y) effects on alfalfa forage yield, density and biomass of the weed plants.
Source
df
Alfalfa forage yield Silverleaf nightshade
density
Silverleaf nightshade
biomass
A
2
**
*
*
S
1
**
**
**
A x S
1
*
∗
*
Y
2
*
*
ns
Y x A
2
*
*
ns
Y x S
1
*
*
ns
Y x A x S
2
*
*
ns
* Significant at the 0.05 level
** Significant at the 0.01 level
1...,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45 47,48,49,50,51,52