Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:46:57.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Early Season Weed Control Is Important in Maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric R. Page ,
Diego Cerrudo ,
Philip Westra ,
Mark Loux ,
Kenneth Smith ,
Chuck Foresman ,
Harold Wright  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Eric R. Page
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Crops Processing Centre, 2585 County Road 20, Harrow, Ontario, Canada, N0R 1G0
Diego Cerrudo
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, 1177 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Mark Loux
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Kenneth Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Soils and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Chuck Foresman
Affiliation:
Syngenta USA
Harold Wright
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of early-emerging weeds is essential to protect the yield potential of maize. An understanding of the physiological changes that occur as a result of weed interference is required to address variability in yield loss across sites and years. Field trials were conducted at the University of Guelph (UG), the Ohio State University (OSU), and Colorado State University (CSU) during 2009 and 2010. There were six treatments (season-long weedy and weed-free, and weed control at the 1st-, 3rd-, 5th-, and 10th-leaf-tip stages of maize development) and 20 individual plants per plot were harvested at maturity. We hypothesized that, as weed control was delayed, weed interference in the early stages of maize development would increase plant-to-plant variability in plant dry-matter accumulation, which would result in a reduction of grain yield at maturity. The onset of the critical period for weed control (CPWC) occurred on average between the third and fifth leaf tip stages of development (i.e., V1 to V3, respectively). Rate of yield loss following the onset of the CPWC ranged from 0.05 MG ha−1 d−1 at UG 2009 to 0.22 MG ha−1 d−1 at CSU 2010 (i.e., 0.5 and 1.6% d−1, respectively). On average, reductions in kernel number per plant accounted for approximately 65% of the decline in grain yield as weed control was delayed. Biomass partitioning to the grain was stable through early weed removal treatments, increased and peaked at the 10th-leaf-tip time of control, and decreased in the season-long weedy treatment. Plant-to-plant variability in dry matter at maturity and incidence of bareness increased as weed control was delayed. As weed control was delayed, the contribution of plant-to-plant variability at maturity to the overall yield loss was small, relative to the decline of mean plant dry matter.

Keywords

AtrazineglyphosatemesotrioneS-metolachlormaize, Zea mays LZea mayscornweed interferenceyield lossharvest indexkernel numberkernel weightplant-to-plant variabilityreproductive allometry
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 423 - 430
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

Andrade, F. H. and Abbate, P. A. 2005. Response of maize and soybean to variability in stand uniformity. Agron. J. 97:1263–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, F. H., Vega, C., Uhart, S., Cirilo, A., Cantarero, M., and Valentinuz, O. 1999. Kernel number determination in maize. Crop Sci. 39:453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrás, L. and Gambín, B. L. 2010. Trait dissection of maize kernel weight: toward integrating hierarchical scales using a plant growth analysis. Field Crops Res. 118:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrás, L. and Westgate, M. E. 2006. Predicting maize kernel sink capacity early in development. Field Crops Res. 95:223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrás, L., Westgate, M. E., Astini, J. P., and Echarte, L. 2007. Coupling time to silking with plant growth rate in maize. Field Crops Res. 102:73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, G. S. and Norman, J. M. 1998. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. New York Springer-Verlag. Pp. 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerrudo, D., Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Stewart, G., and Swanton, C. J. 2012. Mechanisms of yield loss in maize caused by weed competition. Weed Sci. 60:225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirilo, A. G. and Andrade, F. H. 1994. Sowing date and kernel weight in maize. Crop Sci. 36:325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. J. and Cherney, J. H. 2011. Growth and yield response of soybean to row spacing and seeding rate. Agron J. 103:123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. J., Hahn, R. R., and Stachowski, P. J. 2006. Time of weed removal with glyphosate affects corn growth and yield components. Agron. J. 98:349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echarte, L., Luque, S., Andrade, F. H., Sadras, V. O., Cirilo, A., Otegui, M. E., and Vega, C. R. C. 2000. Response of maize kernel number to plant density in Argentinean hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Field Crops Res. 68:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echarte, L. and Tollenaar, M. 2006. Kernel set in maize hybrids and their inbred lines exposed to stress. Crop Sci. 46:870–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. V., Lindquist, J. L., and Shapiro, C. A. 2003a. Influence of nitrogen and duration of weed interference on corn growth and development. Weed Sci. 51:546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. V., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankenship, E. E. 2003b. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci. 51:408–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoula, V. A. and Tollenaar, M. 2005. The impact of plant population density on crop yield and response to selection in maize. Maydica. 50:39–48.Google Scholar
Ford, J. H. and Hicks, D. R. 1992. Corn growth and yield in uneven emerging stands. J. Prod. Agric. 5:185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, F. B. and Daynard, T. B. 1974. Effects of genotype planting pattern and planting density on plant-to-plant variability and grain yield of corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 54:323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, E. C. and Rodgers, J. S. 1958. Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn. Agron. J. 50:611–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., Harrison, S. K., Spankle, P. L., Probst, N. J., Bauman, T. T., Bugg, W., Curran, W. S., Currie, R. S., Harvey, R. G., Johnson, W. G., Kells, S. J., Owen, M. D. K., Regehr, D. L., Slack, C. H., Spaur, M., Sprague, C. L., VanGessel, M., and Young, B. G. 2003. Effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Tech. 17:821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, T. 1988. Dynamics of size structure in plant populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3:129–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knezevic, S. V., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. V., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C. J. T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weed. Weed Res. 31:97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. A. and Tollenaar, M. 2007. Physiological basis of successful breeding strategies for maize grain yield. Crop Sci. 47(S3):S202–S215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, W. and Tollenaar, M. 2009. Response of yield to increasing plant density in maize. 2009. Crop Sci. 49:1807–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, W., Tollenaar, M., Stewart, G., and Deen, W. 2004. Response of corn grain yield to spatial and temporal variability in emergence. Crop Sci. 44:847–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddonni, G. A. and Otegui, M. E. 2004. Intra-specific competition in maize: early establishment of hierarchies among plants affects final kernel set. Field Crops Res. 85:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci. 52:802–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., De St Remy, A. E., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss in barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otegui, M. E., Nicolini, M. G., Ruiz, R. A., and Dodds, P. A. 1995. Sowing date effects on grain yield components for different maize genotypes. Agron. J. 87:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagano, E. and Maddoni, G. A. 2007. Intra-specific competition in maize: early establishment hierarchies differ in plant growth and biomass partitioning to the ear around silking. Field Crops Res. 101:306–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, E. R., Cerrudo, D., Liu, W., Lee, E. A., and Swanton, C. J. 2011. Shade avoidance influences stress tolerance in maize. Weed Sci. 59:326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010. Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop–weed competition. Weed Res. 50:281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendleton, J. W. and Seif, R. D. 1962. Role of height in corn competition. Crop Sci. 2:154–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajcan, I. R. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize–weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole-plant. Field Crops Res. 71:139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Subedi, K. D. and Ma, B. L. 2009. Assessment of some major yield-limiting factors on maize production in a humid temperate environment. Field Crops Res. 110:21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Mahoney, K. J., Chandler, K., and Gulden, R. H. 2008. Integrated weed management: knowledge based weed management systems. Weed Sci. 56:168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shresthta, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop. Prod. 2:9–29.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
Tollenaar, M. and Daynard, T. B. 1978. Kernel growth and development at two positions on the ear of maize (Zea mays). Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Daynard, T. B., and Hume, R. B. 1979. Effect of temperature on rate of leaf appearance and flowering date in maize. Crop Sci. 19:363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dwyer, L. M., and Stewart, D. W. 1992. Ear and kernel formation in maize hybrids representing three decades of grain yield improvement in Ontario. Crop Sci. 33:432–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Lee, E. A. 2006. Dissection of physiological processes underlying grain yield in maize by examining genetic improvement and heterosis. Maydica. 51:399–408.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Wu, J. 1999. Yield improvement in temperate maize is attributable to greater stress tolerance. Crop Sci. 39:1597–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period for weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega, C. R. and Sadras, V. O. 2003. Size-dependent growth and the development of inequality in maize, sunflower and soybean. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 91:795–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vega, C. R. C., Sadras, V. O., Andrade, F. H., and Uhart, S. A. 2000. Reproductive allometry in soybean, maize and sunflower. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 85:461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice-Hall. 417 p.Google Scholar