Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:14:42.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Within-Season Changes in the Residual Weed Community and Crop Tolerance to Interference over the Long Planting Season of Sweet Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, Ill. 61801. Author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sweet corn is planted over a long season to temporally extend the perishable supply of ears for fresh and processing markets. Most growers' fields have weeds persisting to harvest (hereafter called residual weeds), and evidence suggests the crop's ability to endure competitive stress from residual weeds (i.e., crop tolerance) is not constant over the planting season. Field studies were conducted to characterize changes in the residual weed community over the long planting season and determine the extent to which planting date influences crop tolerance to weed interference in growth and yield traits. Total weed density at harvest was similar across five planting dates from mid-April to early-July; however, some changes in composition of species common to the midwestern United States were observed. Production of viable weed seed within the relatively short growth period of individual sweet corn plantings showed weed seedbank additions are influenced by species and planting date. Crop tolerances in growth and yield were variable in the mid-April and both May plantings, and the crop was least affected by weed interference in the mid-June and early-July planting dates. As the planting season progressed from late-May to early-July, sweet corn accounted for a great proportion of the total crop–weed biomass. Based on results from Illinois, a risk management perspective to weeds should recognize the significance of planting date on sweet corn competitive ability. This work suggests risk of yield loss from weed control failure is lower in late-season sweet corn plantings (June and July) than earlier plantings (April and May).

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.competitive abilityintegrated weed managementplanting daterisk management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 319 - 325
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

Benson, G. O. 1990. Corn replant decisions: a review. J. Prod. Agric. 3:180–184.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., Brown, R., Stonehouse, D. P., Hume, D. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Energy analysis of tillage and herbicide inputs in alternative weed management systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 52:119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J. B., Bellinder, R. R., and Kirkwyland, J. J. 1999. Efficacy of mechanical cultivation with and without herbicides in broccoli (Brassica oleracea), snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darby, H. M. and Lauer, J. G. 2002. Planting date and hybrid influence on corn forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 94:281–289.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. and Doohan, D. J. 2008. The challenges of specialty crop weed control, future directions. Weed Technol. 22:364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U. S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636–644.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 5:114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1999. A risk management perspective on integrated weed management. Pages 167–187. In Buhler, D. D. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York Hawthorn.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Jannink, J. L., Jordan, N. R., and Orf, J. H. 2001. Feasibility of selection for high weed suppressive ability in soybean: absence of tradeoffs between rapid initial growth and sustained later growth. Euphytica. 120:291–300.Google Scholar
Kwabiah, A. B. 2004. Growth and yield of sweet corn (Zea mays L.) cultivars in response to planting date and plastic mulch in a short-season environment. Scientia Horticulturae. 102:147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauer, J. G., Carter, P. R., Wood, T. M., Diezel, G., Wiersma, D. W., Rand, R. E., and Mlynarek, M. J. 1999. Corn hybrid response to planting date in the northern corn belt. Agron. J. 91:834–839.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Smith, A., Verbeek, B., Koetz, E., Lockley, P., and Martin, P. 2006. Incremental crop tolerance to weeds: a measure for selecting competitive ability in Australian wheats. Euphytica. 149:85–95.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1994. Reduced input corn weed control: the effects of planting date, early season weed control, and row-crop cultivator selection. J. Prod. Agric. 7:256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Chicago Irwin. 1408.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2000. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. Contrib. No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Lincoln, NE Association of Official Seed Analysts.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 Sci. 57:290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.Google Scholar
Swanson, S. P. and Wilhelm, W. W. 1996. Planting date and residue rate effects on growth, partitioning, and yield of corn. Agron. J. 88:205–210.Google 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.Google Scholar
SYSTAT Software 2004. SYSTAT 11.0. Richmond, CA.Google Scholar
Tracy, W. F. 2001. Sweet corn. Pages 155–197. In Hallauer, A. R. Specialty Corns. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci. 54:928–933.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II 2008. Sweet corn growth and yield responses to planting dates of the north central U.S. HortScience. 43:1775–1779.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 Res. 48:58–67.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Lindquist, J. L. 2007. Influence of planting date and weed interference on sweet corn growth and development. Agron. J. 99:1066–1072.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2008b. Residual weeds of sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol. 22:646–653.Google Scholar
Zhao, D. L., Atlin, G. N., Bastiaans, L., and Spiertz, J. H. J. 2006. Cultivar weed-competitiveness in aerobic rice: heritability, correlated traits, and the potential for indirect selection in weed-free environments. Crop Sci. 46:372–380.Google Scholar