Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:25:11.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late-Emerging Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Interference in Conventional Tillage Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph C. Cordes ,
William G. Johnson ,
Peter Scharf  and
Reid J. Smeda
Joseph C. Cordes
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47905
Peter Scharf
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Waterhemp has emerged as one of the most problematic weeds in agronomic crops in the Midwest because of an extended germination period and widespread occurrence of biotypes resistant to atrazine and sulfonylurea herbicides. However, the competitive effects of late-emerging cohorts on corn yield are not known. Field studies were conducted in 2001 and 2002 at Columbia, Novelty, and Albany, MO, to determine the effects of late-emerging waterhemp interference on corn growth, nitrogen (N) accumulation, and yield. Waterhemp emerged approximately 20 d after planting (DAP) and was treated at heights of 8, 15, 23, 31, 38, or 46 cm with directed applications of dicamba + diflufenzopyr followed by hand hoeing. Soil water status, corn leaf chlorophyll content, and corn and common waterhemp height were recorded at the time of waterhemp removal. N stress was detected with a chlorophyll meter at four of six removal timings at high waterhemp densities (362 or more plants/m2) but only at one of six removal timings at lower densities (82 or less plants/m2). Water stress was observed at five of the six removal timings at high densities but at none of the removal timings at low densities. High waterhemp densities reduced corn yield when allowed to reach 15 cm before removal, and yields were reduced 36% when not controlled. At low densities, yield losses did not occur unless waterhemp was allowed to remain with corn season long. Our research suggests that waterhemp is less competitive with corn than redroot pigweed, smooth pigweed, and Palmer amaranth. In addition, low densities of late-emerging waterhemp would not warrant removal to protect corn yield.

Keywords

Atrazinedicambadiflufenzopyrsulfonylureacommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer. #3 AMATAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L.corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 34B28’Chlorophyll contentnitrogen accumulationsoil moisture deficitCEC, cation exchange capacityDAP, days after plantingK, potassiumN, nitrogenOM, organic matterP, phosphorusSPAD, single photon avalanche diodeTDR, time domain reflectrometryVWC, volumetric water content.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 999 - 1005
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

Anonymous. 2002. Conservation Technology Information Center National Crop Residue Management Survey. Executive Summary:. Web page: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CTIC.html. Accessed: October 14, 2004.Google Scholar
Blanco, H. G., Haag, H. P., and Oliveira, D. 1978. Competition of weeds in maize (Zea mays L.): effects of nitrogen fertilizers on the degree of competition. Pflanz. Nachr. Bayer 29:191–235.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of Abutilon theophrasti, Amaranthus rudis, Eriochloa villosa and Setaria faberi . Weed Sci. 49:230–236.Google Scholar
Coffman, C. A. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:76–81.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Owen, M. D. K. 1999. Weed population dynamics in land removed from the conservation reserve program. Weed Sci. 47:511–517.Google Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hyrst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 17:214–216.Google Scholar
Gonzalez Ponce, R. and Salas, M. L. 1995. Improvement of the growth, grain yield, and nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium nutrition of grain corn through weed control. J. Plant Nutr 18:2313–2324.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G. and Sprague, C. L. 2002. Weeds on the horizon. University of Illinois–Urbana. The Pest Management and Crop Development Bull 2:6.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Stoller, E. W. 1997. Waterhemp management in agronomic crops. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Bull. X855. 12 p.Google Scholar
Hans, S. R. and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Influence of shattercane [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.] interference on corn (Zea mays) yield and nitrogen accumulation. Weed Technol. 16:787–791.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
Heap, I. 2003. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds:. Web page: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: December 7, 2003.Google Scholar
Hellwig, K. B., Johnson, W. G., and Scharf, P. C. 2002. Grass weed interference and nitrogen accumulation in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci. 50:757–762.Google Scholar
Issac, R. A. and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 59:98–100.Google Scholar
Iwata, I. and Takayangi, S. 1980. Studies on the damage to upland crops caused by weeds. 4. Effect of weeds on the growth and nitrogen absorption in corn. Weed Res 25:253–257.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G. 2000. Herbicide-resistant corn: survey results from 1998 and 2000. University of Missouri–Columbia. Integrated Pest & Crop Management Newsletter 10:24–25.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., and Mainz, M. 2003. Yield Penalty Due to Delayed Weed Control in Corn and Soybean. Online. Crop Management DOI:10.1094/CM-2003-0219-01-RS.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., 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
Krugh, B. W., Bickham, L., and Miles, C. D. 1994. The solid-state chlorophyll meter: a novel instrument for rapidly and accurately determining the chlorophyll concentrations in seedling leaves. Maize Genetics Corporation Newsletter 68:25–27.Google Scholar
Levy, D. L. and Skiles, J. W. 1996. Calibration of the Minolta SPAD-502 Meter: A Non-destructive Means of Determining Chlorophyll. Moffett Field, CA: SETI Institute, NASA Ames Research Center. Pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Randall, S. C., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202–208.Google Scholar
Moolani, M. K., Ellery, L., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1963. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 11:126–128.Google Scholar
Nordby, D. E. and Hartzler, R. G. 2002. Influence of corn on common waterhemp growth and fecundity. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 57:145.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. L., Schepers, J. S., Francis, D. D., and Schlemmer, M. R. 2002. Use of spectral radiance to estimate in-season biomass and grain yield in nitrogen- and water-stressed corn. Crop Sci 42:165–171.Google ScholarPubMed
Settimi, J. R. and Maranville, J. W. 1998. Carbon dioxide assimilation efficiency of maize leaves under nitrogen stress at different stages of plant development. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 29:777–792.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2002. Late-season common waterhemp interference in corn. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 57:143.Google Scholar
Taiz, L. and Zeiger, E. 1998. Assimilation of mineral nutrients and mineral nutrition. in Plant Physiology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinaur Associates. Pp. 323–346, 103–124.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of weed interference and soil nitrogen on four maize hybrids. Agron. J 86:596–601.Google Scholar
Turner, F. T. and Jund, M. F. 1991. Chlorophyll meter to predict nitrogen topdress requirement for semidwarf rice. Agron. J 83:926–928.Google Scholar
USDA. 2002. Missouri Farm Facts. Columbia, MO: Missouri Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting Service. 12 p.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J 47:213–216.Google Scholar
Weise, A. F. and Vandiver, C. N. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, C. W., Reeves, D. W., Duffield, R. R., and Edmisten, K. L. 1992. Field chlorophyll measurements for evaluation of corn nitrogen status. J. Plant. Nutr 15:487–500.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in corn. Weed Sci. 32:232–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar