Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:47:53.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual weed competitiveness as affected by preemergence herbicide in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Konanani B. Liphadzi and
J. Anita Dille
Konanani B. Liphadzi
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competitiveness of weeds that survive a PRE herbicide application (escaped weeds) might be altered because of herbicide injury. As a result, potential crop yield loss may be reduced. Field experiments were conducted at Ashland Bottoms, KS, in 2001 and 2002 and at Rossville, KS, in 2002. The objectives were to quantify corn growth and yield response to Palmer amaranth or velvetleaf competition, with or without isoxaflutole (0.03 kg ha−1) or flumetsulam (0.04 kg ha−1) application, and to determine seed production of Palmer amaranth or velvetleaf as affected by PRE herbicide. Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf densities ranged from 0 to 6 and 0 to 32 plants m−1 of corn row, respectively. At Ashland Bottoms in 2002, corn height at tasseling decreased with increasing Palmer amaranth (1.58 cm weed−1 m−1) and velvetleaf (1.32 cm weed−1 m−1) density when no herbicide was applied. With flumetsulam application, each increase in velvetleaf density reduced corn height by 0.4 cm. Escaped Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf were shorter than untreated plants at corn tasseling. At Rossville in 2002, Palmer amaranth that escaped isoxaflutole or flumetsulam application caused 13% corn yield loss (YL) at a density of 3 plants m−1. In contrast, corn YL from untreated Palmer amaranth at the same density was 30%. At Ashland Bottoms in 2002, velvetleaf that escaped flumetsulam caused 3% corn YL at a density of 3 plants m−1 compared with 38% YL caused by untreated velvetleaf at the same density. Seed production of Palmer amaranth was independent of density or herbicide treatment, whereas production of velvetleaf seed increased with density, with or without flumetsulam. The study showed that corn YL from both Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf that escaped a PRE herbicide was less than from untreated weeds, but seed production by escaped weeds was similar to that of untreated weeds.

Keywords

FlumetsulamisoxaflutolePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats., AMAPAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L., ‘DKC53–34RR’, ‘Asgrow RX740RR’Competitionescaped weedsweed densityyield loss

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2006, pp. 156 - 165
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

Adcock, T. E. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Effects of preemergence herbicides on the competitiveness of selected weeds. Weed Sci 39:54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Askew, S. D., Dorai-Raj, S., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed production dynamics in cotton. Weed Sci 51:94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, F. L. and Santelmann, P. W. 1980. Weed science in integrated pest management. Bioscience 30:675–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. C. and Shaw, D. R. 2000. Effect of Glycine max cultivar and weed control on weed seed characteristics. Weed Sci 48:431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biniak, B. M. and Aldrich, R. J. 1986. Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide applications. Weed Sci 34:256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci 50:273–280.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Response of velvetleaf demographic process to herbicide rate. Weed Sci 49:22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regression for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol 6:898–903.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.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.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 458–517.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Kim, D. S., Brian, P., Marshall, E. J. P., and Caseley, J. C. 2001. Modelling herbicide dose and weed density effects on crop:weed competition. Weed Res 42:1–13.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13:331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed in corn. Weed Sci 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle 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
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. Pp. 31 and 171.Google Scholar
Lueshen, W. E., Anderson, R. N., Hoverstad, T. R., and Kanne, B. K. 1993. Seventeen years of cropping systems and tillage affect velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed longevity. Weed Sci 41:82–86.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202–208.Google Scholar
Murphy, C. A. and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Growth response of velvetleaf to three postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 50:364–369.Google Scholar
Neeser, C., Dille, J. A., Krishnan, G., Mortensen, D. A., Rawlinson, J. T., Martin, A. R., and Bills, L. B. 2004. WeedSOFT: a weed management decision support system. Weed Sci 52:115–122.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. pp. 893 and 1135.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of soil-applied atrazine and pendimethalin on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competitiveness in corn. Weed Technol 12:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Alm, D. M. 1993. Survey results on environmental issues and weed science research priorities within the corn belt. Weed Technol 7:763–770.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) seed production and viability as influenced by late-season postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Sci 45:497–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol 5:674–679.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res 28:347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar