Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:00:08.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen management will influence threshold values of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. Jason Cathcart  and
Clarence J. Swanton
R. Jason Cathcart
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1H 2W1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Environmental legislation may impose limitations on the quantity of nitrogen (N) used in corn production on the basis of soil type and ground water flow. If N rates are reduced, this might influence the relative competitiveness of weed species. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to develop a surface response model to provide estimations of the effect of differing N rates on threshold values of green foxtail in corn and to use this model as a theoretical framework for hypothesis testing. Field experiments were conducted from 1999 to 2001 to examine the interaction of N rate and green foxtail density on corn grain yield. The experiment was designed as a two-factor factorial with N levels ranging from 0 to 200 kg N ha−1 and targeted green foxtail densities ranging from 0 to 300 green foxtail plants m−2. The addition of up to 200 kg N ha−1 increased corn grain yield in both weed-free and weedy treatments. Corn yield loss attributed to green foxtail ranged from 35 to 40% at 0 kg N ha−1 to 12 to 17% at 200 kg N ha−1. Ridge analysis of the response surfaces indicated that optimal corn grain yield could be achieved at derived values of 131 to 138 kg N ha−1 while maintaining a green foxtail density of 8 to 9 green foxtail plants m−2 on a sandy soil with less than 2% organic matter. The analyses of simulation results led to the generation of hypotheses of practical relevance to N management. On the basis of the generated hypotheses, a legislated reduction in N or an increase in the cost of N fertilizer would result in a lower threshold value for green foxtail in corn. If legislation were to ban the use of all herbicides in corn production, higher N rates or an increase in mechanical weed control measures would be required to offset yield losses caused by green foxtail. The human health and environmental consequences of such legislation would be significant.

Keywords

Green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv., SETVIcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3905’Ammonium nitratenitrogen fertilizer legislationMERNresponse surface analysisridge estimate
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 975 - 986
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2001. Canadian Fertilizer Consumption, Shipments and Trade 1999/2000. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada—Strategic Policy Branch.Google Scholar
Ampong-Nyarko, K. and De Datta, S. K. 1993. Effects of light and nitrogen and their interaction on the dynamics of rice-weed competition. Weed Res 33:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. L., Kamprath, E. J., and Moll, R. H. 1984. Nitrogen fertility effects on accumulation, remobilization, and partitioning of N and dry matter in corn genotypes differing in prolificacy. Agron. J 76:397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, I. C., Buxton, D. R., Karlen, D. L., and Cambardella, C. 1997. Cropping system effects on nitrogen removal, soil nitrogen, aggregate stability, and subsequent corn grain yield. Agron. J 89:881–886.Google Scholar
Andraski, T. L., Bundy, L. G., and Brye, K. R. 2000. Alternative management and corn nitrogen rate effects on nitrate leaching. J. Environ. Qual 29:1095–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1992. Ontario's drinking water objectives. Environment Information, Summer 1992. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Canadian Climate Normals Normales climatiques au Canada 1961–1990. Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada.Google Scholar
Appel, T. and Mengel, K. 1993. Nitrogen fractions in sandy soils in relation to plant uptake and organic matter incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochem 25:685–691.Google Scholar
Ball-Coelho, B. R. and Roy, R. C. 1997. Overseeding rye into corn reduces NO3 leaching and increases yields. Can. J. Soil Sci 77:443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball-Coelho, B. R. and Roy, R. C. 1999. Enhanced ammonium sources to reduce nitrate leaching. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst 54:73–80.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, E. B., Newick, P. G., and Sheard, R. W. 1987. Nitrogen Requirements for Corn in Southern Ontario. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph. 120 p.Google Scholar
Below, F. E. 1995. Nitrogen metabolism and crop productivity. Pages 275–301 in Pessarakli, M. ed. Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. and Templeman, W. G. 1938. The nature of the competition between cereal crops and annual weeds. J. Agric. Sci 28:247–271.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., and Janzen, H. H. 2002. Fertilizer application method affects nitrogen uptake in weeds and wheat. Weed Sci 50:634–641.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Stobbe, E. H., and Sturko, A. R. W. 1981. Effect of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and productivity of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 29:212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Bowley, S. R. 1999. A hitchhiker's guide to statistics in plant biology. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: Plants et al. 250 p.Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci 34:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancellor, W. J. and Goronea, M. A. 1994. Effects of spatial variability of nitrogen, moisture, and weeds on the advantages of site-specific applications for wheat. Trans. ASAE 37:717–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol 6:191–195.Google Scholar
Cochran, V. L., Morrow, L. A., and Schirman, R. D. 1990. The effect of N placement on grass weeds and winter wheat response in three tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res 18:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. Camb 105:513–521.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol 5:664–673.Google Scholar
Daberkow, S. 1997. Adoption rates for selected crop management practices—implications for precision farming. Choices 12:26–30.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci 49:558–566.Google Scholar
Defelice, M. S. 2002. Green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. Weed Technol 16:253–257.Google Scholar
Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., Morrison, I. N., and Maw, M. G. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 70. Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:669–690.Google Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: J. Wiley. 680 p.Google Scholar
Hallberg, G. R. 1986. From hoes to herbicides: agriculture and groundwater quality. J. Soil Water Conserv 41:357–364.Google Scholar
Kachanoski, R. G. and Fairchild, G. L. 1996. Field scale fertilizer recommendations: the spatial scaling problem. Can. J. Soil Sci 76:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachanoski, R. G., O'Halloran, I. P., Aspinall, D., and von Bertoldi, A. P. 1996. Delta yield: mapping fertilizer nitrogen requirement for crops. Better Crops 80:20–23.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. and Beckie, H. J. 1998. Contribution on nitrogen fertilizer placement to weed management in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 12:507–514.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: relations amongst weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area, and yield loss. Weed Sci 40:296–301.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS. 632 p.Google Scholar
Magdoff, R. F., Ross, D., and Amadon, J. 1984. A soil test for nitrogen availability in corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 48:1301–1304.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. G. and Kalra, Y. P. 1993. Nitrate and exchangeable ammonium nitrogen. Pages 25–38 in Carter, M. R. ed. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Myers, R. H. and Montgomery, D. C. 2002. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. 700 p.Google Scholar
Nadeau, L. B. and Morrison, I. N. 1986. Influence of soil moisture and root growth of green and yellow foxtail (Setaria viridis and S. lutescens). Weed Sci 34:225–232.Google Scholar
Neeteson, J. J. 2000. Nitrogen and phosphorus management on Dutch dairy farms: legislation and strategies employed to meet regulations. Biol. Fertil. Soils 30:566–572.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. and Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Corn-foxtail competition under various production conditions. Agron. J 53:1–5.Google Scholar
Novoa, R. and Loomis, L. S. 1981. Nitrogen in plant production. Plant Soil 58:177–204.Google Scholar
Oberle, S. L. and Keeney, D. R. 1990. Factors influencing corn fertilizer N requirements in the northern US corn belt. J. Prod. Agric 3:527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okafor, L. I. and De Datta, S. K. 1976. Competition between upland rice and purple nutsedge for nitrogen, moisture, and light. Weed Sci 24:43–46.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 1998. Publication 611. Soil Fertility Handbook. Toronto: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and The Fertilizer Institute of Ontario Inc. 169 p.Google Scholar
Paolini, R., Principi, M., Froud-Williams, R. J., Del Puglia, S., and Biancardi, E. 1999. Competition between sugarbeet and Sinapis arvensis and Chenopodium album, as affected by timing of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Res 39:425–440.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. E. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Environmental influences green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition with wheat. Weed Technol 6:607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajcan, I. and Tollenaar, M. 1999a. Source:sink ratio and leaf senescence in maize. I. Dry matter accumulation and partitioning during grain filling. Field Crops Res 60:245–253.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. and Tollenaar, M. 1999b. Source:sink ratio and leaf senescence in maize. II. Nitrogen metabolism during grain filling. Field Crops Res 60:255–265.Google Scholar
Rejesus, R. M. and Hornbaker, R. H. 1999. Economic and environmental evaluation of alternative pollution-reducing nitrogen management practices in central Illinois. Agric. Ecosystems Environ 75:41–53.Google Scholar
Rice, C. W., Havelin, J. L., and Schepers, J. S. 1995. Rational nitrogen fertilization in intensive cropping systems. Fert. Res 42:89–97.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1994. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. 6th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schepers, J. S., Frank, K. D., and Bourg, C. 1986. Effect of yield goal and residual soil nitrogen considerations on nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for irrigated maize in Nebraska. J. Fert. Issues 3:133–139.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A. J., Dhuyvetter, K. C., and Havlin, J. L. 1996. Economic and environmental impacts of long-term nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization. J. Prod. Agric 9:114–118.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A. J. and Havlin, J. L. 1995. Corn response to long-term nitrogen and phophorus fertilization. J. Prod. Agric 8:181–185.Google Scholar
Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980a. Effects of green foxtail and lamb's-quarters interference in field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci 60:1419–1425.Google Scholar
Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980b. Effects of various densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.) and lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album L.) on nitrogen uptake and yields of corn. East Afr. Agric. For. J 43:214–221.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Effects of annual grass weeds on the yield of corn. Agron. J 49:551–555.Google Scholar
Swank, J. C., Below, F. E., Lambert, R. J., and Hageman, R. H. 1982. Interaction of carbon and nitrogen metabolism in productivity of maize. Plant Physiol 70:1185–1190.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci 44:437–445.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shrestha, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop Prod 2:9–29.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rational and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant Soil 135:287–292.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Aguilera, A., and Nissanka, S. P. 1997. Grain yield is reduced more by weed interference in an old than in a new maize hybrid. Agron. J 89:239–246.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994a. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J 86:591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994b. Effect of weed interference and soil nitrogen on four maize hybrids. Agron. J 86:596–601.Google Scholar
Vanotti, M. B. and Bundy, L. G. 1994. An alternative rationale for corn nitrogen fertilizer recommendations. J. Prod. Agric 7:243–249.Google Scholar
Williams, J. T. 1963. Chenopodium album. L. J. Ecology 51:711–725.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. D. and Tilman, D. 1993. Plant competition and resource availability in response to disturbance and fertilization. Ecology 74:599–611.Google Scholar