Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:04:39.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn leaf architecture as a tool for weed management in two corn production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sujatha Sankula,
Mark J. VanGessel and
Ronald R. Mulford
Sujatha Sankula
Affiliation:
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C. 20036
Ronald R. Mulford
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, Poplar Hill Facility, Quantico, MD 21856
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research in irrigated and nonirrigated corn production systems was conducted to evaluate the effect of leaf architecture of corn hybrids on weed management. The corn hybrids used in each study were ‘Pioneer 3394’ (upright leaf) and ‘Pioneer 3260’ (horizontal leaf). In the irrigated study, residual weed control treatments included two rates of prepackaged mixtures of metolachlor plus atrazine, encapsulated acetochlor plus atrazine, nonencapsulated acetochlor plus atrazine, or a tank mixture of simazine and metolachlor plus atrazine. In the irrigated experiments, horizontal leaf architecture reduced weed density (all three sites in 1 of 2 yr), weed biomass (five of six sites), solar radiation reaching the ground (all six sites), and weed seed production (one site each year) compared with upright leaf architecture. Weed density and weed biomass did not differ between herbicide rates or acetochlor formulation at any site. Corn hybrid was significant for yield at only one site. Reduced weed biomass did not translate into yield differences. The nonirrigated study evaluated two factors at four sites over 2 yr: leaf architecture (upright or horizontal leaf) and weed management program (preemergence residual and postemergence no residual) at two application rates. Neither weed density nor weed biomass was reduced because of corn leaf architecture or herbicide rates in the nonirrigated study. No interaction was detected in either irrigated or nonirrigated studies between leaf architecture and herbicide treatments, indicating that these factors are independent of one another. On the basis of these studies, it appears that horizontal leaf architecture of corn hybrids can assist in integrated weed management in irrigated corn production but may not be beneficial when corn is grown under drought-prone conditions.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazinemetolachlorsimazinecorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3260’, ‘Pioneer 3394’Weed emergenceleaf area indexrow spacingreduced herbicide ratesweed seed production

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 6 , December 2004, pp. 1026 - 1033
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

Ball, D. A. and Shaffer, M. J. 1993. Simulating resource competition in multispecies agriculture plant communities. Weed Res 33:299–310.Google Scholar
Begna, S. H., Hamilton, R. I., Dwyer, L. M., Stewart, D. W., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., Foroutan-Pour, K., and Smith, D. L. 2001. Weed biomass production response to plant spacing and corn (Zea mays) hybrids differing in canopy architecture. Weed Technol 15:647–653.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Stefani, A. 1994. Effects of shade on reproduction and some morphological characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti Medicus., Datura stramonium L., and Sorghum halapense (L.) Pers. Weed Res 34:283–288.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinocloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Effects of shade on silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci 30:264–269.Google Scholar
Carey, V. F., Smith, R. J., and Talbert, R. E. 1994. Interference duration of bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis) in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci 42:180–183.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1983. Yields of three cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars as influenced by spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) competition. Weed Sci 31:303–307.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Patterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:535–543.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci 37:239–249.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1972. Effect of shade on giant foxtail. Weed Sci 20:588–592.Google 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
Kropff, M. J., Spitters, C. J. T., Schnieders, B. J., Joenje, W., and De Groot, W. 1992. An eco-physiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar beet. II. Model evaluation. Weed Res 32:451–463.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci 46:569–574.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, B. E. 1998. Mechanisms of corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J 90:787–792.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and orientation of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 41:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Relating Eriochloa villosa emergence to interference in Zea mays . Weed Sci 47:571–577.Google 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 and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci 44:856–870.Google Scholar
Newcomer, D. T., Giraudo, L. J., and Banks, P. A. 1986. Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivar as a Factor of Weed Control in No-till Double-cropped Production Following Wheat. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 508. 16 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of shading and temperature on showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectablis). Weed Sci 30:692–697.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. Pages 101–129 in Duke, S. O. ed. Weed Physiology. Volume I: Reproduction and Ecophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Ramsel, R. E. and Wicks, G. A. 1988. Control of weeds with corn hybrids, planting dates, and irrigation scheduling. Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control conference. 61 p.Google Scholar
Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybean and weeds. Agron. J 76:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, M. M., Srasha, B. S., Trimmell, D., and White, M. D. 1988. Controlled release herbicides. Pages 177–191 in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R. eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. WSSA Monograph 4. Champaign, IL: WSSA.Google Scholar
Sims, J. T., Mackenzie, J. A., Tilmon, H. D., Taylor, R. W., Williams, T. H., Hawk, J. A., Uniatowski, R., Graustein, M. R., and Webb, F. J. 1987. Irrigated Corn Production: A Guide to Profitable High Yields. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension, Cooperative Bulletin 13.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Responses of corn hybrids to yellow foxtail competition. Weeds 9:132–136.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D., Yip, C. P., and Sieczka, B. 1974. Crop varieties: can they suppress weeds? NY Food Life Sci. Q 7:3–5.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Influence of corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) yield. Weed Sci 46:447–453.Google Scholar
Toler, J. E., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. S., and Wallace, S. U. 1999. Corn leaf orientation effects on light interception, intraspecific competition, and grain yields. J. Prod. Agric 12:396–399.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinocloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci 38:338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 1–3, 299, 300.Google Scholar
Walker, G. K., Blackshaw, R. E., and Dekker, J. 1988. Leaf area and competition for light between plant species using direct sunlight transmission. Weed Technol 2:159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar