Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-4gwwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T08:14:45.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlations among relative crop and weed growth stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan E. Weaver
Susan E. Weaver*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Harrow, ON, Canada N0R 1G0; weavers@em.agr.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was undertaken to determine whether the relative leaf stages of common annual weeds and crops could serve as a reliable indicator of the time of weed emergence. Ten annual broadleaved and grass weeds were sown at successive intervals in field corn and soybean at Harrow, ON, Canada, in 1997, 1998, and 1999. All weeds emerging at a particular crop leaf stage were assigned to a cohort. Leaf numbers of the crop and different weed cohorts were recorded at 2- to 3-d intervals up to the eight-leaf stage of corn and the fourth trifoliate of soybean. For each weed species, categorical data analysis revealed a high degree of association between the leaf stage of a crop and the leaf number expected for an individual weed of a given cohort. For example, by the third trifoliate of soybean, most of the weeds emerging with the crop (VE cohort) had 8 to 10 leaves, whereas weeds in the V1, V2, and V3 cohorts averaged about seven, four, and two leaves, respectively. Year to year variation in the correspondence between crop and weed leaf numbers generally was small once variation due to time of weed emergence was removed, with one exception. Dry surface soil conditions during emergence of the VE cohort in corn in 1999 resulted in delayed leaf appearance of many weeds with respect to the crop. The relationship between weed and crop leaf stages can provide information for management decisions in two ways: (1) it indicates the relative time of weed emergence in assessing the need for control, and (2) it indicates the crop stage at which scouting for particular weed leaf stages should occur.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3573’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘NK 2492’Leaf numbervelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTHcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANSTredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. PANDI

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 163 - 170
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. 2001. Guide to Weed Control 2001. Publication 75. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A., Klepper, B., and Rydrych, D. J. 1995. Comparative aboveground development rates for several annual grass weeds and cereal grains. Weed Sci. 43:410–416.Google Scholar
Bosnić, A. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 43:81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9:356–361.Google Scholar
Colquhoun, J., Stoltenberg, D. E., Binning, L. K., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Phenology of common lambsquarters growth parameters. Weed Sci. 49:177–183.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Binning, L. K., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2001. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) cohort and density affect soybean yield. Page 269 In Abstracts of the Weed Science Society of America Volume 41. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Weaver, S. E., Porter, J. R., Rooney, J. M., Butler, D. R., and Johnson, M. P. 1992. Growth and development of Avena fatua (wild-oat) in the field. Ann. Appl. Biol. 120:339–351.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, W. and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Influence of temperature, photoperiod, and irradiance on the phenological development of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Sci. 46:555–560.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1998. Real-time assessment of seed dormancy and seedling growth for weed management. Seed Sci. Res. 8:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Benech Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R., and Ghersa, G. M. 2000. Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res. 67:123–139.Google Scholar
Frazee, R. W. and Stoller, E. W. 1974. Differential growth of corn, soybean, and seven dicotyledonous weed seedlings. Weed Sci. 22:336–339.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
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.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Young, B. G., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 2001. Influence of weed competition and herbicides on glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:530–534.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Smeda, R. J. and Hoefer, J. A. 2001. Impact of glyphosate application timing on weed control and soybean yield. Page 119 In Abstracts of the 288th Weed Science Society of America Annual Meeting. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., and Rahimian, H. 2000. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of barnyardgrass. Agron. J. 92:1125–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13:807–813.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.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