Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T10:14:41.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Suppressive Ability among Three Sweet Corn Hybrids

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: mmwillms@uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Due to known variation in canopy properties among sweet corn hybrids, weed suppressive ability (WSA), the crop's ability to reduce weed fitness, may not be uniform among hybrids. This hypothesis was tested using a range of wild proso millet densities subjected to four canopy treatments (three hybrids + weedy monoculture) under irrigated conditions in Washington and primarily rainfed conditions in Illinois. Parameter estimates for responses of weed growth and seed rain to wild proso millet density were used to quantify variation in WSA among hybrids. The same parameter estimates were used in a correlation analysis to identify associations between weed response and sweet corn canopy properties. Weed suppressive ability, as measured by wild proso millet shoot biomass and seed rain, varied among canopy treatments. Hybrid GH2547 was 25 to 31% more suppressive of wild proso millet than hybrid Spirit in Washington and 70 to 91% more suppressive in Illinois. Weed fitness was negatively correlated with leaf area index (LAI) after crop anthesis (−0.48 to −0.63), intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at one of two harvest times (−0.51 to −0.56), and LAI at the 120- to 150-cm height (−0.51 to −0.55). Information on WSA may be useful in breeding programs; however, even near-term use of this knowledge offers modest but cumulative improvements to weed management systems in sweet corn.

Keywords

Wild proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. PANMIsweet corn, Zea mays L. ‘GH2547,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘WHT2801.’Competitionfecundityintegrated weed managementweed density
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 245 - 251
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

Agdag, M., Nelson, L., Baltensperger, D., Lyon, D., and Kachman, S. 2001. Row spacing affects grain yield and other agronomic characters of proso millet. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32:2021–2032.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2003. Sweet Corn Pest Management Strategic Plan. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/NCSweetcorn.pdf.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.Google 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
Bisikwa, J. 2001. Effects of canopy density on growth and development of wild proso millet and giant foxtail. St. Paul, MN University of Minnesota .Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. Compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 7:169–180.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34:29–36.Google Scholar
Colosi, J. C. and Schaal, B. A. 1997. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) is genetically variable and distinct from crop varieties of proso millet. Weed Sci. 45:509–518.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Peterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:535–543.Google Scholar
Ford, G. T. and Pleasant, J. M. 1994. Competitive abilities of six corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids with four weed control practices. Weed Technol. 8:124–128.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: wild-proso millet. Crops Soils Mag. 27:10–13.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Growth Analysis. London Edward Arnold Publishers.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis. London Unwin Hyman.Google 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. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbeek, B., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci. 44:634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. 1997. Many little hammers: Ecological approaches for management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343. in Jackson, L.E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic.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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Makus, D. J. 2000. Performance of two sweet corn cultivars grown under conservation tillage and with-in-row weed pressure. Subtrop. Plant Sci. 52:18–22.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Bastiaans, L., and Sattin, M. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40:49–62.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago Irwin. 1408.Google Scholar
Pataky, J. K. 1992. Relationships between yield of sweet corn and northern leaf blight caused by Exserohilum turcicum . Phytopathology. 82:370–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pester, T. A., Burnside, O. C., and Orf, J. H. 1999. Increasing crop competitiveness to weeds through crop breeding. Pages 59–76. in Buhler, D.D. ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binghamton, NY Food Products.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York Marcel Dekker. 135–153.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E. and Janke, R. R. 1990. Evolving strategies for managing weeds. Pages 174–202. in Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House, G. eds. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, IA Soil and Water Conservation Society.Google Scholar
Roggenkamp, G. J., Mason, S. C., and Martin, A. R. 2000. Velvetleaf and green foxtail response to corn hybrid. Weed Technol. 14:304–311.Google Scholar
Russelle, M. P., Wilhelm, W. W., Olson, R. A., and Power, J. F. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankula, S., VanGessel, M. J., and Mulford, R. R. 2004. Corn leaf architecture as a tool for weed management in two corn production systems. Weed Sci. 52:1026–1033.Google Scholar
Strand, O. E. and Behrens, R. 1981. Identification of Wild Proso Millet. Minneapolis, MN University of Minnesota Agronomy Fact Sheet No. 35. 2.Google 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
SYSTAT 2004. SYSTAT 11.0. Richmond, CA SYSTAT.Google Scholar
Tracy, W. F. 2001. Sweet corn. Pages 155–197. in Hallauer, A.R. ed. Specialty Corns. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL CRC.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.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, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2006a. Canopy variation among three sweet corn hybrids and implications for light competition. HortScience. 41:1–6.Google 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.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., Boerboom, C. L., and Davis, A. S. 2006b. Survey of weeds and weed management in sweet corn grown for processing. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:83.Google Scholar