Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:52:18.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Weed Removal Timing and Row Spacing on Soil Moisture in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Caleb D. Dalley ,
Mark L. Bernards  and
James J. Kells
Caleb D. Dalley
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Mark L. Bernards
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant corn was grown in 38- and 76-cm row spacings at two locations in 2001 to examine the effect of weed competition and row spacing on soil moisture. Volumetric soil moisture was measured to a depth of 0.9 m in 18-cm increments. Glyphosate was applied when average weed canopy heights reached 5, 10, 15, 23, and 30 cm. Season-long weed interference reduced soil moisture compared with the weed free controls. At Clarksville, MI, where common lambsquarters was the dominant weed species, weed interference reduced soil moisture in the 0- to 18-cm soil depth from late June through early August and at the 54- to 72- and 72- to 90-cm depths from mid-July through the end of the season. At East Lansing, MI, where giant foxtail was the dominant weed species, weed interference reduced soil moisture at the 18- to 36-, 36- to 54-, and 54- to 72-cm soil depths from mid-June to the end of the season. Season-long weed competition reduced yields more than 90% at each location. Weeds that emerged after the 5-cm glyphosate timing reduced soil moisture and grain yield at both locations. Delaying glyphosate applications until weeds reached 23 cm or more in height reduced corn yield at both locations and soil moisture at East Lansing. Grain yields in the 10- and 15-cm glyphosate-timing treatments were equal to the weed-free corn, even though soil moisture was less during pollination and grain fill. Row spacing did not affect grain yield but did affect soil moisture. Soil moisture was greater in the 76-cm row spacing, suggesting that corn in the 38-cm row spacing may have been able to access soil moisture more effectively.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAcorn, Zea mays L.Narrow-row cornglyphosate-resistantweed interferenceweed competitiontime domain reflectometrysoil waterDAP, days after plantingFC, field capacityPRE, preemergencePWP, permanent wilting point
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 399 - 409
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Agronomist, USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Rd, Houma, LA 70360.
Current address: Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583.

References

Literature Cited

Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, P. A., Tripp, T. N., Wells, J. W., and Hammel, J. E. 1986. Effects of tillage on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference with soybeans (Glycine max) and soil water use. Weed Sci. 34:143–149.Google Scholar
Bell, D. T. and Koeppe, D. E. 1972. Noncompetitive effects of giant foxtail on the growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.Google Scholar
Bullock, D. G., Nielsen, R. L., and Nyquist, W. E. 1988. A growth analysis comparison of corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacing. Crop Sci. 28:254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Classen, M. M. and Shaw, R. H. 1970. Water deficit effects on corn, II: grain component. Agron. J. 62:652–655.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004a. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004b. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18:177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. H. 1940. Absorption of soil moisture by maize roots. Bot. Gaz. 101:791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. G., Wiese, A. F., and Pafford, J. L. 1965. Root moisture extraction profiles of various weeds. Weeds 13:98–100.Google Scholar
Eck, H. V. 1984. Irrigated corn yield response to nitrogen and water. Agron. J. 76:421–428.Google Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hurst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 17:214–216.Google Scholar
Green, J. D., Murray, D. S., and Stone, J. F. 1988. Soil water relations of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 36:740–746.Google 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.Google Scholar
Herkelrath, W. N., Hamburg, S. P., and Murphy, F. 1991. Automatic, real-time monitoring of soil moisture in a remote field area with time domain reflectometry. Water Resour. Res. 27:857–864.Google Scholar
Hill, L. V. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual weeds on Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:1–2.Google Scholar
Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pluckett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. B., Kannenberg, L. W., and Gamble, E. E. 1970. Performance of five maize hybrids in varying plant populations and row widths. Agron. J. 62:255–256.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.Google Scholar
Karlen, D. L. and Camp, C. R. 1985. Row spacing, plant population, and water management effects on corn in the Atlantic coastal plain. Agron. J. 77:393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:281–283.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957–962.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Huck, M. G. 1992. Tomato and nightshade (Solanum nigrum L. and S. ptycanthum Dun.) effects on soil water content. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 117:730–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merz, B. and Plate, E. J. 1997. An analysis of the effects of spatial variability of soil and soil moisture on runoff. Water Resour. Res. 33:2909–2922.Google Scholar
NeSmith, D. S. and Ritchie, J. T. 1992. Short- and long-term responses of corn to a pre-anthesis soil water deficit. Agron. J. 84:107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, R. L. 1988. Influence of hybrids and plant density on grain yield and stalk breakage in corn grown in 15-inch row spacing. J. Prod. Agric. 1:190–195.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1996. Water use efficiency as a method for predicting water use by weeds. Weed Technol. 10:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., and Delannay, X. et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35:1451–1461.Google Scholar
Pavlychenko, T. K. 1937. Quantitative study of the entire root systems of weed and crop plant under field conditions. Ecology 18:62–79.Google Scholar
Porter, P. M., Hicks, D. R., Lueschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Warnes, D. D., and Hoverstad, T. R. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the Northern Corn Belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10:293–300.Google Scholar
Saxton, K. E., Rawls, W. J., Romberger, J. S., and Papendick, R. I. 1986. Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 50:1031–1036.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9:113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, J. E., Jean, F. C., and Christ, J. W. 1922. Development and activities of roots of crop plants: a study in crop ecology. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute of Washington. Pub. 316.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable cops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24:317–325.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R. M. W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop–weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, W. D. and Thelen, K. D. 2002. Row width and plant density effects on corn grain production in the northern Corn Belt. Agron. J. 94: 1020–10.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1983. Effect of irrigation on quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:720–727.Google Scholar