Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:40:44.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Tolerance in Sweet Corn to Wild-proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
Rick A. Boydston  and
Adam S. Davis
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Rick A. Boydston
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Vegetable and Forage Crops Research, 24106 N. Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: martin.williams@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop tolerance (CT), the crop's ability to endure or avoid competitive stress from weeds, varies between old and modern dent corn hybrids; however, this hypothesis has not been tested in sweet corn. Three modern sweet corn hybrids, known to vary in canopy density, were subjected to a range of wild-proso millet densities under irrigated conditions in Washington and primarily rain-fed conditions in Illinois. A path analysis was used to identify relationships among CT and specific canopy properties important to competitive interactions. Crop tolerance varied among hybrids in three of four site–years. Sweet corn hybrid ‘Spirit’ suffered higher yield losses than hybrids ‘WHT2801’ and ‘GH2547’. Generally higher yield loss parameter estimates in Illinois, compared with Washington, suggests CT may have more to offer for weed management in the north-central than north-western United States. Path analysis indicated that wild-proso millet biomass and seedling population density were both important factors driving yield loss in canopy-sparse Spirit, whereas only early season wild-proso millet population density contributed to yield loss of canopy-dense WHT2801 and GH2547. Differential tolerance to weed interference exists among commercially available sweet corn hybrids.

Keywords

Wild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. PANMI, sweet corn, Zea mays L. ‘GH2547’, ‘Spirit’, ‘WHT2801’.Competitionpath analysisriskweed densityyield loss

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 91 - 96
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2003a. Crop Profile for Sweet Corn in the North Central United States. http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/us-ncr-sweetcorn.html. Accessed: January 29, 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003b. Sweet Corn Pest Management Strategic Plan. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/NCSweetcorn.pdf. Accessed: January 29, 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2006. Vegetables 2005 Summary. Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office. 17–69.Google Scholar
Azanza, F., Bar-Zur, A., and Juvik, J. A. 1996. Variation in sweet corn kernel characteristics associated with stand establishment and eating quality. Euphytica. 87:7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, R. A., McNew, R. W., Vories, E. D., Keisling, T. C., and Purcell, L. C. 2001. Path analysis of population density effects on short-season soybean yield. Agron. J. 93:187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begna, S. H., Hamilton, R. I., Dwyer, L. M., Stewart, D. W., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., Foroutan-pour, K., and Smith, D. L. 2001. Morphology and yield response to weed pressure by corn hybrids differing in canopy architecture. Eur. J. Agron. 14:293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.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
Duvick, D. N. 2005. The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L). Adv. Agron. 86:83–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannink, J. L., Orf, J. H., Jordan, N. R., and Shaw, R. G. 2000. Index selection for weed suppressive ability in soybean. Crop Sci. 40:1087–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1989. Path analysis of growth differences between weed and nonweed populations of poorjoe (Diodia teres) in competition with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleppe, C. D. and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence-directed herbicides control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:746–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 46:569–574.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 theophrasti) 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. 90:787–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, A. J., Riha, S. J., and Mohler, C. L. 2004. Mining the record: historical evidence for climatic influences on maize–Abutilon theophrasti competition. Weed Res. 44:439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. 2001. Path analysis: pollination. in Scheiner, S.M. and Gurevitch, J., eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York Oxford University Press. 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1991. Effects of tillage and mulch on weed biomass and sweet corn yield. Weed Technol. 5:545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeser, C., Dille, J. A., Krishnan, G., Mortensen, D. A., Rawlinson, J. T., Martin, A. R., and Bills, L. B. 2004. WeedSOFT: a weed management decision support system. Weed Sci. 52:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. Wheat seeding rate influences herbicide performance in wild oat (Avena fatua L). Agron. J. 98:815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. G. J. and Seefeldt, S. 1999. Characterizing traits that enhance the competitiveness of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Sci. 47:74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajcan, I., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red–far red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci. 52:774–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York Marcel Dekker. 135–157.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Gulden, R. H., and Chandler, K. 2007. A rationale for atrazine stewardship in corn. Weed Sci. 55:75–81.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
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
Tracy, W. F. 2001. Sweet corn. in Hallauer, A.R., ed. Specialty Corns. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 155–197.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci. 54:928–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2006a. Canopy variation among three sweet corn hybrids and implications for light competition. Hortscience. 41:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2007. Wild-proso millet suppressive ability among three sweet corn hybrids. Weed Sci. 55:245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Masiunas, J. B. 2006. Functional relationships between giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference and sweet corn yield and ear traits. Weed Sci. 54:948–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., Boerboom, C. M., and Davis, A. S. 2006b. Survey of weeds and weed management in sweet corn grown for processing. in. Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Milwaukee, WI North Central Weed Science Society. 83.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild-proso millet interference in corn. Weed Sci. 39:217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar