Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:59:55.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet corn hybrid tolerance to weed competition under three weed management levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

R.A. Boydston  and
M.M. Williams II
R.A. Boydston*
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 24106 N Bun Road, Prosser, WA, 99350, USA.
M.M. Williams II
Affiliation:
Ecologist, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
*
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nearly all commercial sweet corn fields contain weeds that escaped management and, therefore, sweet corn often suffers yield losses due to weed competition. For this reason, field trials were conducted from 2009 to 2011 near Prosser, WA and Urbana, IL to evaluate the responses of weeds and four sweet corn hybrids to three levels of weed management; weed free, high intensity cultivation (HC), and low intensity cultivation (LC). Weed management level had the greatest impact on early season weed densities and HC reduced final weed biomass more than LC in 2 of 4 site-years. Two taller sweet corn hybrids with greater leaf area suppressed final weed biomass more than two shorter hybrids with less leaf area in 3 of 4 site-years. When grown with less intense weed management that resulted in more weeds, taller sweet corn hybrids with greater leaf area maintained yields better than shorter, less competitive sweet corn hybrids. Utilizing hybrids with greater tolerance to weeds and greater ability to suppress weeds could be a valuable component of an integrated weed management system.

Keywords

crop competitioncrop tolerancecultivationrelative yieldsweet cornZea mays Lweed competitionweed managementweed suppressive ability
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 281 - 287
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Grevsen, K. 2003. Weed competitive ability of green peas (Pisum sativum L.) affected by seeding rate and genotype characteristics. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 21:247–261.Google Scholar
Makus, D. 2000. Performance of two sweet cultivars grown under conservation tillage and with-in-row weed pressure. Subtropical Plant Science 52:18–22.Google Scholar
Melander, B., Rasmussen, I.A., and Barberi, P. 2005. Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control examples from European research. Weed Science 53:369–381.Google Scholar
Pataky, J.K. 1992. Relationships between yield of sweet corn and northern leaf blight caused by Exserohilum turcicum . Phytopathology 82:370–375.Google Scholar
Seavers, G.P. and Wright, K.J. 1999. Crop canopy development and structure influence weed suppression. Weed Research 39:319–328.Google Scholar
So, Y.F., Williams, M.M. II, Pataky, J.K., and Davis, A.S. 2009. Principal canopy factors of sweet corn and relationships to competitive ability with wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Science 57:296–303.Google Scholar
Williams, M.M. II and Masiunas, J.B. 2006. Functional relationships between giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) interference and sweet corn yield and ear traits. Weed Science 54:947–952.Google Scholar
Williams, M.M. II, Boydston, R.A., and Davis, A.S. 2006. Canopy variation among three sweet corn hybrids and implications for light competition. HortScience 41:1449–1454.Google Scholar
Williams, M.M. II, Boydston, R.A., and Davis, A.S. 2007. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) suppressive ability among three sweet corn hybrids. Weed Science 55:245–251.Google Scholar
Williams, M.M. II, Boydston, R.A., and Davis, A.S. 2008a. Crop competitive ability contributes to herbicide performance in sweet corn. Weed Research 48:58–67.Google Scholar
Williams, M.M. II, Boydston, R.A., and Davis, A.S. 2008b. Differential tolerance in sweet corn to wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference. Weed Science 56:91–96.Google Scholar
Williams, M.M. II, Rabaey, T.L., and Boerboom, C.M. 2008c. Residual weeds of processing sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technology 22:646–653.Google Scholar
Yenish, J.P. and Young, F.L. 2004. Winter wheat competition against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) as influenced by wheat plant height, seeding rate and seed sized. Weed Science 52:996–1001.Google Scholar
Zystro, J.P., de Leon, N., and Tracy, W.F. 2012. Analysis of traits related to weed competitiveness in sweet corn (Zea mays L.). Sustainability 4:543–560.Google Scholar