Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T12:30:17.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John L. Lindquist  and
David A. Mortensen
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improved crop tolerance and weed suppressive ability are tactics that may reduce the negative effect of weeds on crop yield. Irrigated field experiments were conducted to compare leaf area index (LAI), intercepted photosynthetic photon flux (PPF), and relative tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability among two old (circa 1940) and two modern corn hybrids. Each hybrid was grown in monoculture and in mixture with velvetleaf at 1, 4, 16, and 40 plants m−1 row. Plants were periodically harvested in monoculture plots to obtain estimates of corn LAI, and PPF interception was measured. Variation in hybrid tolerance to velvetleaf competition for light was evaluated by comparing among hybrids the coefficients of a regression of corn yield loss on velvetleaf density. Velvetleaf seed capsule production in the presence of each hybrid was compared to evaluate variation in velvetleaf suppressive ability among hybrids. Maximum corn yield loss was 32% lower for the two old hybrids, and velvetleaf capsule production was reduced by 62% at low velvetleaf densities in 1995 compared to the modern hybrids. In 1996, yield loss of the modern hybrid 3394 was 74% lower than that of the other three hybrids at low velvetleaf densities, whereas maximum yield loss of the old hybrid 336 was 44% lower at high densities. Velvetleaf capsule production did not vary among hybrids at any velvetleaf density in 1996. Hybrids with greater tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability also had greater LAI and PPF interception, suggesting optimized corn LAI and PPF interception may be useful in an integrated weed management program.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti L., ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 336, 344, 3379, and 3394'Competitioncompetitive abilityplant stressintegrated weed managementABUTH
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , October 1998 , pp. 569 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Berkowitz, A. R. 1988. Competition for resources in weed–crop mixtures. Pages 89-120 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1990. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 7: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, M. B. and Forcella, F. 1992. Crop tolerance to weeds. Pages 100-131 in Callaway, M. B. and Francis, C. A., eds. Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture Systems. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. D. and Fletcher, D. J. 1990. Experimental design for screening competitiveness of crop cultivars. Pages 163-165 in Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conf. Adelaide, S. Australia: Crop Science Society of Australia, with assistance from the Wheat Research Council of Australia.Google Scholar
Duvick, D. N. 1992. Cenetic contributions to advances in yield of U.S. maize. Maydica 37: 69–79.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1987. Tolerance of weed competition associated with high leaf atea expansion rate in tall fescue. Crop Sci. 27: 146–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, P. R. and Aquino, R. C. 1968. Studies on competition in rice. III. Mechanisms of competition among phenotypes. Evolution 22: 529–542.Google ScholarPubMed
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3: 84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modelling crop–weed interactions. Wallingford, Great Britain: CAB International and the International Rice Research Institute. 274 p.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci. 44: 634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, J. 1980. Response of plants to environmental stresses. 2nd ed, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press. 607 p.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 1997. An Ecophysiological Approach to Understanding Corn Tolerance and Velvetleaf Suppressive Ability. Ph.D. thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. 156 p.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Kropff, M. J. 1996. Applications of an ecophysiological model for irrigated rice (Oryza sativa)– Echinochloa competition. Weed Sci. 44: 52–56.CrossRefGoogle 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 theopbrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44: 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, B. E. 1998. Mechanisms of corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Christensen, S., Cloutier, D., er al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 36: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) . Weed Sci. 41: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration, and yield in corn. Agron. J. 81: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear regression modeling: a unified practical approach. New York: Marcel Dekker. 276 p.Google Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32: 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Responses of corn hybrids to yellow foxtail competition. Weeds 9: 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42: 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Responses of maize to plant population density. I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron. J. 80: 930–935.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Wiese, 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Ramsel, R. E., Nordquist, P. T., Schmidt, J. W., and Challaiah, . 1986. Impact of wheat cultivars on esrablishmenr and suppression of summer annual weeds. Agron. J. 78: 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. A., Loomis, R. S., Duncan, W. G., Dovrat, A., and Nunez, F. A. 1968. Canopy architecture at various population densities and the growth and grain yield of corn. Crop Sci. 8: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar