Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:40:51.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sean P. Evans ,
Stevan Z. Knezevic ,
John L. Lindquist ,
Charles A. Shapiro  and
Erin E. Blankenship
Sean P. Evans
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68728
John L. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Charles A. Shapiro
Affiliation:
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728
Erin E. Blankenship
Affiliation:
Department of Biometry, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The critical period for weed control (CPWC) is the period in the crop growth cycle during which weeds must be controlled to prevent unacceptable yield losses. Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 in eastern Nebraska to evaluate the influence of nitrogen application on the CPWC in dryland corn in competition with a naturally occurring weed population. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied at rates equivalent to 0, 60, and 120 kg N ha−1. A quantitative series of treatments of both increasing duration of weed interference and length of weed-free period were imposed within each nitrogen main plot. The beginning and end of the CPWC based on an arbitrarily 5% acceptable yield loss level were determined by fitting the logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data representing increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period, respectively. Despite an inconsistent response of corn grain yield to applied nitrogen, there was a noticeable influence on the CPWC. The addition of 120 kg N ha−1 delayed the beginning of the CPWC for all site–years when compared with the 0-kg N ha−1 rate and for three of the four site–years when compared with the 60-kg N ha−1 rate. The addition of 120 kg N ha−1 also hastened the end of the CPWC at three of the four site–years when compared with both reduced rates. The yield component most sensitive to both nitrogen and interference from weeds was seed number per ear. Practical implications of this study are that reductions in nitrogen use may create the need for more intensive weed management.

Keywords

Glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb DK589RR’Weed interferencecompetitionintegrated weed managementcritical time of removalcritical weed-free period
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 408 - 417
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. 1997. Upper Elkhorn Natural Resources District Ground Water Management Plan. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Upper Elkhorn Natural Resources District. 155 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000a. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1999 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 112 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000b. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 89 p.Google Scholar
Burkart, M. R. and James, D. E. 1999. Agricultural-N contributions to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Environ. Qual. 28:850–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretation of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hattab, H. S., Abdallah Hussein, M. A., El-Hattab, A. H., Abdel Raouf, M. S., and El-Nomany, A. A. 1980. Growth analysis of maize plant in relation to grain yield as affected by N levels. Z. Acker- Pflanzenb. 149:46–57.Google Scholar
Evans, S. P. 2001. Effects of Varying Nitrogen Supply on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays L.). . University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. 210 p.Google Scholar
Ferrero, A., Scanzio, M., and Acutis, M. 1996. Critical period of weed interference in maize. Pages 171–176 In Proceedings of the 2nd International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute of Plant and Soil Science.Google Scholar
Gilmore, E. C. and Rogers, R. S. 1958. Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn. Agron. J. 50:611–615.Google Scholar
Gosheh, H. Z., Holshouser, D. L., and Chandler, J. M. 1996. The critical period of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 44:944–947.Google Scholar
Goss, M. J., Beauchamp, E. G., and Miller, M. H. 1995. Can a farming systems approach help minimize N losses to the environment? J. Contam. Hydrol. 20:285–297.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
Hergert, G. W., Ferguson, R. B., and Shapiro, C. A. 1995. Fertilizer suggestions for corn. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension Publication No. G74-174-A.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, H. J., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzales, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest Art. News Summ. (C) 14:159–166.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. and Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Corn-foxtail competition under various production conditions. Agron. J. 53:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novoa, R. and Loomis, R. S. 1981. N and plant production. Plant Soil. 58:177–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. D. 1990. Handbook of Nonlinear Regression Models. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 128–138.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. S., Hanway, J. J., and Benson, G. O. 1997. How a Corn Plant Develops. Special Report No. 48 (Revised). Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Sciences and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Schwenke, J. R. and Milliken, G. A. 1991. On the calibration problem extended to nonlinear models. Biometrics. 47:563–574.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:648–656.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
Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Responses of maize to plant population density. I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron. J. 80:930–935.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to N supply and form. Plant Soil. 135:287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994a. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86:591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994b. Effect of weed interference and soil N on four maize hybrids. Agron. J. 86:596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Mer.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47:213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Crop manipulation in integrated weed management systems. Weed Sci. 30 (Suppl. 1): 17–24.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groenevled, R. W. 1992. Use of eco-physiological models for crop-weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. T. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39:217–220.Google Scholar