Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:24:59.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel and
Christy L. Sprague
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowing the interference potential of common waterhemp in corn could be beneficial in planning waterhemp management strategies. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, field studies were conducted to examine both early- and late-season common waterhemp interference in corn. Early-season interference was determined by removing common waterhemp at the VE (vegetative emergence), V4 (four visible leaf collars), V6, V8, V10, V12, and V14 growth stages of corn for the entire season, and late-season interference was determined by allowing common waterhemp to emerge and compete from the VE, V4, V6, V8, V10, V12, and V14 corn growth stages. The interference potential of common waterhemp varied between the year 2000 and the combined years of 2001–2002. This is probably due to differences in precipitation in May and June in these two environments (297 mm in 2000 compared with 198 mm in 2001–2002). An excess of 590 g m−2 of dry matter and 13,000 and 1,200 seeds per female plant were produced when common waterhemp emerged at V4 and V6 corn, respectively, the 2 yr that corn was drought stressed. When corn was not moisture stressed, common waterhemp that emerged at V4 and V6 corn produced less than 220 g m−2 and less than 500 seeds per female plant. Season-long common waterhemp interference reduced corn yield 74% in 2 yr of the study and 11% in the third. Early-season common waterhemp interference began at V6 corn, with a 4 and 23% yield loss in 2000 and 2001–2002, respectively. Common waterhemp interference from late-season emergence reduced corn yield when emergence occurred before the V8 corn growth stage. Taking into account early- and late-season common waterhemp interference. the critical common waterhemp–free period was around the V6 corn stage to optimize corn yield.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAcorn, Zea mays L.Competitioncritical weed-free periodlate-season competition

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 2004, pp. 359 - 364
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

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffman, C. B. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 5:76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination I: effect of seed burial and germination temperature. Weed Sci 46:48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2002. Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A., Wax, L., and Simmons, F. W. 1998. Waterhemp Management in Illinois Agronomic Crops. Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci 50:607–610.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
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol 11:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci 17:281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. F., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci 44:865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., and Benson, G. O. 1993. How a Corn Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. 48.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, J. and Struik, G. 1964. A possible ecological relation between soil disturbance, light-flash, and seed germination. Ecology 45:884–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L. and Hager, A. G. 2003. Weeds on the Horizon. www.ag.uiuc.edu/cespubs/pest/articles/200206j.htmledu.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an acetolactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Res 37:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Hager, A. G., Simmons, F. W., and Bollero, G. 2003. Effects of shading on common waterhemp growth and development. Weed Sci 51:898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1997. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Pages 155–181 in Foy, C. L. ed. Reviews of Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. and Johnson, I. R. 1990. Page 78 in Plant and Crop Modeling: A Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Vengris, J. 1963. The effect of time of seeding on growth and development of rough pigweed and yellow foxtail. Weed Sci 11:48–50.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest: distribution, importance and management. Pages 239–242 in Proceedings of Integrated Crop Management Conference. Volume 7. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–155 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar