Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:45:02.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop Seeding Level: Implications for Weed Management in Sweet Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II and
Rick A. Boydston
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research, USDA-ARS, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Rick A. Boydston
Affiliation:
Vegetable and Forage Crops Research, USDA-ARS, 24106 N Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mmwillms@illinois.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Sweet corn is seeded under a wide range of population densities; however, the extent to which variable population density influences weed suppression is unknown. Therefore, field studies were undertaken to quantify the influence of sweet corn seeding level on growth, seed production, and post-harvest seed germination of wild-proso millet, one of the most problematic weeds in the crop. As crop seeding level increased, path analysis results indicated the crop canopy became taller and thicker, resulting in less wild-proso millet biomass, seed production, and germinability. However, at the level of individual fields, reductions in wild-proso millet growth and seed production were modest, at best, between a crop population currently used by growers and a higher crop population known to optimize yield of certain hybrids. These results indicate near-future increases in sweet corn seeding levels may play a minor role in improving weed management in individual sweet corn fields. Nonetheless, a reduction in crop populations, via weather- or management-driven phenomenon, increases risk of greater wild-proso millet seed production.

Keywords

Wild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum Lsweet corn, Zea mays LCompetitiongerminabilityplant populationplanting arrangementseed bankseed productionseeding density

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2013, pp. 437 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

References

Literature Cited

Brainard, D. C., Bellinder, R. R., and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 53:175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. L. and Hopen, H. J. 1985. A comparison of the biology of wild and cultivated proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 33:795–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, S. A., Clay, D. E., Horvath, D. P., Pullis, J., Carlson, C. G., Hansen, S., and Reicks, G. 2009. Corn responses to competition: growth alteration vs. yield limiting factors. Agron. J. 101:1522–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duvick, D. N. 2005. The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Adv. Agron. 86:83–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pp. 291–343 in Jackson, L. E., ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, H. J. 1972. Effects of population density, plant arrangement, and fertilizers on yield of sweet corn. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 97:757–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. 2001. Path analysis: pollination. Pp. 217–234 in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J., eds. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. New York Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrovic, A., Bogdanovic, J., Giba, Z., and Culafic, L. 2010. Effect of photoperiod during growth of Chenopodium rubrum mother plants on properties of offspring. Biol. Plant. (Prague) 54:735–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T. F., Hamilton, G., and Harney, S. 2000. Optimum plant population for fresh-market sweet corn in the northeastern United States. HortTechnology 10:331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Irwin, Chicago, 1408 p.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., and Clayton, G. W. 2006. Wheat seeding rate influences herbicide performance in wild oat (Avena fatua L.). Agron. J. 98:815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010a. Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 50:281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010b. Timing, effect, and recovery from intraspecific competition in maize. Agron. J. 102:1007–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, A., Rajcan, I., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. An integrated weed management strategy for glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Techol. 15:517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Nurse, R. E., Welacky, T., and Hamill, A. S. 2008. Reduced herbicide rates provide acceptable weed control regardless of corn planting strategy in Ontario field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 88:373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
So, Y. F., Williams, M. M. II. Pataky, J. K., and Davis, A. S. 2009. Principal canopy factors of sweet corn and relationships to competitive ability with wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 57:296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanger, T. F. and Lauer, J. G. 2006. Optimum plant population of bt and non-bt corn in Wisconsin. Agron. J. 98:914–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., Echarte, L., and Liu, W. D. 2006. Effect of crowding stress on dry matter accumulation and harvest index in maize. Agron. J. 98:930–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86:591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westgate, M. E., Forcella, F., Reicosky, D. C., and Somsen, J. 1997. Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern U.S. corn belt: radiation-use efficiency and grain yield. Field Crops Res. 49:249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II. 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci. 54:928–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II. 2012. Agronomics and economics of plant population density on processing sweet corn. Field Crops Res. 128:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Davis, A. S., Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2009. Linkages among agronomic, environmental, and weed management characteristics in North American sweet corn production. Field Crops Res. 113:161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Pataky, J. K. 2012. Maize dwarf mosaic can reduce weed suppressive ability of sweet corn. Weed Sci. 60:577–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2008. Residual weeds of processing sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol. 22:646–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Schutte, B. J., and So, Y. F. 2012. Maternal corn environment influences wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) seed characteristics. Weed Sci. 60:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar