Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:44:48.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Interference in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Wilson and
Philip Westra
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of wild proso millet interference with irrigated corn were evaluated in Nebraska and Colorado over a 2-yr period. Corn yield reductions ranged from 13 to 22% from a wild proso millet density of 10 plants m–2. As density increased, corn yield reduction could be predicted with a rectangular hyperbola regression model. Ten wild proso millet plants m–2 growing with corn produced 4200 to 6200 seed m–2. Corn yields were reduced 10% at one location if wild proso millet removal was delayed 2 weeks after corn planting. If removal was further delayed until 6 weeks after corn planting, corn yield reductions at the two locations ranged from 16 to 28%.

Keywords

Wild proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. # PANMIcorn, Zea mays LCompetitioninterferencetime of removaltridiphane + cyanazinePANMI

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 1991, pp. 217 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

1. Black, J. N. 1958. Competition between plants of different initial seed sizes in swards of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) with particular reference to leaf area and the light micro-climate. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 8:335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Boydston, R. A. and Slife, F. W. 1987. Postemergence control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) in corn (Zea mays) with tridiphane and triazine combinations. Weed Sci. 35:103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Coultas, J. S. 1986. Growth and development of wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in three cropping systems and natural infestations. PhD. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota. 113.Google Scholar
5. Harvey, R. G. 1989. Lessons learned from 15 years of wild proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. spp. ruderale (Kitagawa) Tzevelev., Research. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstracts 29, 141.Google Scholar
6. Knake, E. L. and Slife, R. W. 1961. Competition of Setaria faberii with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1968. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Luellen, W. R. 1982. Wild proso millet: will you recognize it before it is too late? Crops Soils Mag. 34:9–11.Google Scholar
9. McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1988. Research priorities in weed science. Weed Technol. 2:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Moore, D. R. and Cavers, P. B. 1985. A comparison of seedling vigor in crop and weed biotypes of proso millet. Can. J. Bot. 63:1659–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed. Gary, NC. SAS Inst., Inc., 675–712.Google Scholar
12. Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Slife, F. W. 1979. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) competition and control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 27:32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Warwick, S. I. 1987. Isozyme variation in proso millet. J. Hered. 78:210–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition: A review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., U.S.A. 196.Google Scholar