Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T23:12:12.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rafael A. Massinga,
Randall S. Currie and
Todd P. Trooien
Randall S. Currie
Affiliation:
Kansas State University Southwest Research–Extension Center, Garden City, KS 67846
Todd P. Trooien
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, P.O. Box 2120, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted near Garden City, KS, under irrigated conditions to determine the effect of full-season Palmer amaranth infestation on corn water use efficiency and light interception in a fully developed corn canopy. Palmer amaranth at densities of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 plants m−1 was established at corn planting in 1996 and 1997 and at two locations in 1998. Soil water was monitored 240 cm deep in 30-cm increments with a neutron probe each year and at each location every 10 d. Photosynthetic photon flux was measured in 1997 and 1998 by using a circular and a linear quantum sensor for above canopy and in four 50-cm increments for within canopy, respectively. Palmer amaranth reduced corn yield from 11 to 91% as density increased from 0.5 to 8 plants m−1. Water use efficiency of corn declined with increased Palmer amaranth density. Regardless of Palmer amaranth density, soil water extraction was greatest in the top 30 cm of the soil profile. The pattern of corn leaf area distribution was similar across Palmer amaranth densities, with 15, 70 to 75, and 5 to 15% of the total leaf area occurring 1.5 m, 0.5 to 1.5 m, and 0 to 0.5 m above the ground, respectively. In weed-free corn, over 60% of light was intercepted from 0.5 to 1.5 m above the ground. In contrast, in mixed canopies 60 to 80% of light was intercepted 1 m above the ground, where 80% of Palmer amaranth leaf area was concentrated. Under the conditions of this study, water was not a limiting factor. The effect of Palmer amaranth density on total light interception was not significant. However, within each treatment, light interception at different heights differed, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the vertical distribution of light through the canopy to assess the effect of weed height on light competition.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats AMAPAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DK592 SR’Weed densitywater use efficiencyphotosynthetic photon fluxleaf area index

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , August 2003, pp. 523 - 531
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

Akey, W. C., Jurrik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1990. Competition for light between a velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 30:403–411.Google Scholar
Aldrich, R. J. and Kremer, R. J. 1997. Principles in Weed Management. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. pp. 177–181.Google Scholar
Almarras, R. R., Nelson, W. W., and Voorhees, W. B. 1975. Soybean and corn rooting in southwest Minnesota: II. Root distributions and related water inflow. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:771–777.Google Scholar
Black, C. C. Jr., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, M. D., Biggs, W. W., Eastin, J. D., Maranville, J. W., and Sullivan, C. Y. 1974. Light transmission in field communities of sorghum. Agron. J. 66:471–476.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., and Hall, A. E. 1991. Effect of wild oat (Avena fatua) infestations on light interception and growth rate of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 39:175–179.Google Scholar
Davis, R. G., Johnson, W. C., and Wood, F. O. 1967. Weed root profiles. Agron. J. 59:555–556.Google Scholar
Davis, R. G., Wiese, A. F., and Pafford, J. L. 1965. Root extraction profiles of various weeds. Weeds 13:98–100.Google Scholar
Follet, R. F., Almarras, R. R., and Reichman, G. A. 1974. Distribution of corn roots in sandy soil with a declining water table. Agron. J. 66:288–292.Google Scholar
Foth, H. D. 1962. Root and top growth of corn. Agron. J. 54:49–52.Google Scholar
Graham, P. L., Steiner, J. L., and Wiese, A. F. 1988. Light absorption and competition in mixed sorghum-pigweed communities. Agron. J. 80:415–418.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43:474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39:575–584.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. 1997. The changing nature of Palmer amaranth: a case study. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:161.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to Common Pigweed in the Great Plains. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University S-80 Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 49:202–208.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. D. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40:220–226.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 260–266.Google Scholar
Rogers, D. 1994. Irrigation. Pages 3–28 In Corn Production Handbook. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. and Aerts, R. 1983. Simulation of competition for light and water in crop-weed associations. Asp. Appl. Biol. 4:467–483.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. 1968. Rate of weed root elongation. Weed Sci. 16:11–13.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Vandiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J. and Wilkerson, G. G. 1991. Modeling competition for light between soybean and broad leaf weeds. Agric. Syst. 35:37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1993. Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego, CA: Academic. pp. 119–121.Google Scholar