Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:17:50.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Eriochloa villosa density and time of emergence on growth and seed production in Zea mays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James A. Mickelson  and
R. Gordon Harvey
R. Gordon Harvey
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1997 and in 1998 to determine the effects of density and time of emergence on Eriochloa villosa growth and seed production in Zea mays. E. villosa was transplanted at four densities (3, 9, 27, and 81 plants m−2) to simulate emergence at four Z. mays growth stages (VE, V2, V5, and V10). Compared to E. villosa plants that emerged with Z. mays plants, total above-ground E. villosa biomass at maturity of plants grown at 3 plants m−2 was reduced by 54, 97, and 99% when emergence was delayed until the V2, V5, and V10 stages of Z. mays, respectively, in 1997. In 1998, total aboveground E. villosa biomass at maturity was reduced by 70, 87, and 99% when emergence was delayed until the V2, V5, and V10 stages of Z. mays, respectively. E. villosa aboveground vegetative biomass per plant at maturity was linearly related to seed production per plant in each year. E. villosa seed production m−2 decreased nonlinearly as density decreased and time of emergence was delayed. Based on estimated model parameters, maximum seed production was 57,100 and 12,700 seeds m−2 in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Within time of emergence, E. villosa density did not affect seed mass per seed, however, seed mass of late-emerging cohorts was less than that of early-emerging cohorts. Time of weed emergence relative to the crop was a very important factor in determining biomass and seed production. Results suggest that late-emerging plants may not be very important to long-term management of E. villosa.

Keywords

Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth ERBVI, woolly cupgrassZea mays L., corn, ‘Pioneer 34A55.'Weed densitytime of weed emergenceweed–crop interferenceERBVI
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 687 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

Bello, I. A. 1988. Seed production and germination characteristics of woolly cupgrass [Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth]. . Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 135 p.Google 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
Bussler, B. H., Maxwell, B. D., and Puettmann, K. J. 1995. Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci. 43:586–594.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 33–34, 47–56, 299–311, 505–553.Google Scholar
Haig, D. and Westoby, M. 1988. Inclusive fitness, seed resources and maternal care. Pages 60–80 in Lovett Doust, J. and Lovett Doust, L., eds. Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. 1974. Susceptibility of seven annual grasses to herbicides. Weed Res. 14:51–55.Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H., Bello, I. A., and Owen, M.D.K. 1996. Physiological basis of seed dormancy in woolly cupgrass [Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth.]. Weed Sci. 44:87–90.Google Scholar
Lee, T. D. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1980. Effects of defoliation and competition on growth and reproduction in the annual plant Abutilon theophrasti . J. Ecol. 68:813–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Murphy, S. D., Tollenaar, M., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Light limitation of reproduction and variation in the allometric relationship between reproductive and vegetative biomass in Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed). J. Appl. Ecol. 32:157–165.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. 1999. Relationships among woolly cupgrass emergence, fecundity, and seedbank dynamics, and their impact on management in field corn. . University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 142 p.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Relating Eriochloa villosa emergence to interference in Zea mays . Weed Sci. 47:571–577.Google Scholar
Pacala, S. W. and Silander, J. A. Jr. 1990. Field tests of neighborhood population dynamic models of two annual weed species. Ecol. Monogr. 60:113–134.Google Scholar
Pecinovsky, K. T. 1994. Woolly cupgrass [Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth] and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi L. Herrm) competition and herbicide tolerance. . Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 113 p.Google Scholar
Pitelka, L. F., Thayer, M. E., and Hansen, S. B. 1983. Variation in achene weight in Aster acuminatus . Can. J. Bot. 61:1415–1420.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Sequential applications control woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) and wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:537–542.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L., Harvey, R. G., and Albright, J. W. 1996. Herbicide timing and combination strategies for woolly cupgrass control in corn. J. Prod. Agric. 9:381–384.Google Scholar
Rees, M. and Crawley, M. J., 1989. Growth, reproduction, and population dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 3:645–653.Google Scholar
Schuh, J. F. and Harvey, R. G. 1989. Woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) control in corn (Zea mays) with pendimethalin/triazine combinations and cultivation. Weed Sci. 37:405–411.Google Scholar
Schuh, J. F. and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Carbamothioate and chloroacetamide herbicides for woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:331–336.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. D., Ignoffo, C. M., and Smith, D. B. 1976. Influence of defoliation and depodding on quality of soybeans. J. Econ. Entomol. 69:737–743.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. K., Weiner, J., and Warwick, S. I. 1991. Size-dependent reproductive output in agricultural weeds. Can. J. Bot. 69:442–446.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1988. The influence of competition on plant reproduction. Pages 228–245 in Lovett Doust, J. and Lovett Doust, L., eds. Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar