Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T15:07:08.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Plant Volume to Quantify Interference in Corn (Zea mays) Neighborhoods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Brett H. Bussler ,
Bruce D. Maxwell  and
Klaus J. Puettmann
Brett H. Bussler
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Klaus J. Puettmann
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Res., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Measurements of above-ground plant volume were used to quantify corn interference with common cocklebur and velvetleaf. Separate experiments were carried out for each weed species in which neighborhoods with a radius of 50 cm were established around target plants of both species, selected from a range of corn plus cocklebur or velvetleaf densities. Height and canopy area of target plants and neighbor corn and weed populations were measured periodically during the growing season. Target plant (corn, cocklebur, or velvetleaf) size as well as corn and weed population size within each neighborhood were quantified as cylindrical volumes. Regression analysis was used to quantify the relationship between target plant seed production and cylindrical volumes of the target and neighbor species. Both target and neighbor plant volumes were correlated with target plant seed production for all species. The ratio of target plant volume to total neighborhood plant volume (volume ratio) was the independent variable that accounted for the most variation in target plant seed production. These volume-based variables may be used to develop competitive indices in physico-empirical based interference models.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic, ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3787.’Interferencetarget plantneighborhoodAbutilon theophrastiXanthium strumariumABUTHXANST

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 586 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the 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

1. Aarssen, L. W. 1989. Competitive ability and species coexistence: a plant's-eye view. Oikos 56:386–401.Google Scholar
2. Aarssen, L. W. and Clauss, M. J. 1992. Genotypic variation in fecundity allocation in Arabidopsis thaliana . J. Ecol. 80:109–114.Google Scholar
3. Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reductions from weeds. Weed Technol. 1:199–206.Google Scholar
4. Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1988. Interference of four annual weeds in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:764–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1987. On the analysis of competition at the level of the individual plant Oecologia 71:308–317.Google Scholar
7. Goldberg, D. E. 1987. Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecol. 68:1211–1223.Google Scholar
8. van Groenendoel, J. M. 1988. Patchy distribution of weeds and some implications for modelling population dynamics: a short literature review. Weed Res. 28:437–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kawano, S. and Miyake, S. 1983. The productive and reproductive biology of flowering plants. X. Reproductive energy allocation and propagule output of five congeners of the genus Setaria (Gramineae). Oecologia 57:6–13.Google Scholar
10. Kira, T., Ogawa, H., and Sakazaki, N. 1953. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. I. Competition-yield-density interrelationships in regularly dispersed populations. J. Inst. Polytech., Osaka City Univ. Series D 4:1–26.Google Scholar
11. Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–105.Google Scholar
13. Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: relations amongst weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40:296–301.Google Scholar
14. Lee, T. D. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1982. Regulation of fruit and seed production in an annual legume, Cassia fasiculata . Ecol. 63:1363–1373.Google Scholar
15. Maxwell, B. D., Puettmann, K., and Bussler, B. H. 1993. Weeds in the hood (WITH): neighborhood model for simulation of interference between corn and weeds. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:52.Google Scholar
16. Ohlson, M. 1988. Size dependent reproduction effort in three populations of Saxafraga hirculus in Sweden. J. Ecol. 76:1007–1016.Google Scholar
17. Pacala, S. W. and Silander, J. A. 1987. Neighborhood interference among velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Oikos 48:217–224.Google Scholar
18. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
19. Samson, D. A. and Werk, K. S. 1986. Size dependent effects in the analysis of reproductive effort in plants. Am. Naturalist. 127:667–680.Google Scholar
20. SAS. 1988. Proc NUN. Pages 676–712, in SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 1028 pp.Google Scholar
21. Spitters, C. J. T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
22. Thompson, B. K., Weiner, J., and Warwick, S. I. 1991. Size-dependent reproductive output in agricultural weeds. Can. J. Bot. 69:442–446.Google Scholar
23. Tilman, D. 1982. What are resources?, Pages 11–42 in Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 296 pp.Google Scholar
24. Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecol. 72:685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Wagner, R. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1991. Neighborhood predictors of interspecific competition in young Douglas-fir plantations. Can. J. For. Res. 21:821–828.Google Scholar
26. Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345–357.Google Scholar
27. Watkinson, A. R., Lonsdale, W.M., and Firbank, L. G. 1983. A neighborhood approach to self-thinning. Oecologia 56:381–384.Google Scholar
28. Weiner, J. 1982. A neighborhood model of annual-plant interference. Ecol. 63:1237–1241.Google Scholar
29. Weiner, J. 1984. Neighborhood interference amongst Pinus rigida individuals. J. Ecol. 72:183–195.Google Scholar
30. Weiner, J. 1985. Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecol. 66:743–752.Google Scholar
31. White, J. and Harper, J. L. 1970. Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. J. Ecol. 58:476–485.Google Scholar
32. Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347–352.Google Scholar
33. Zobel, B. J. and Van Buijtenen, J. P. 1989. Wood Variation: Its Causes and Control. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 263 p.Google Scholar