Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-cs4hf Total loading time: 3.414 Render date: 2021-04-15T12:24:05.239Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Interactions among weed, insect, and common rust treatments in sweet corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. Gordon Harvey
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706
John L. Wedberg
Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706


Treatment interactions affecting endemic populations of annual grass and broadleaf weeds, corn rootworm larvae (CRW), corn earworm (CEW), European corn borer (ECB), and common rust in sweet corn were investigated in three field studies near Arlington, WI, in 1996 and 1997. In all environments, weed biomass was affected only by the weed control treatments with cultivation resulting in the highest weed biomass. Corn root damage was affected only by the CRW insecticide treatments in the early- and late-planted environments in 1997 (E97 and L97). Both weed control and ear insect (CEW and ECB) control treatments affected corn ear damage by CEW and ECB. In E97 and L97, more insect ear damage occurred in plots with 1× herbicide treatments than in cultivation treatments. In L97, the ear insect treatment decreased ear damage 55% compared to untreated plots. The interaction between ear insect and weed control treatments affected the number of CEW found per 10 ears in L97. The interaction between hybrid rust and weed control treatments influenced common rust severity in all environments. A hybrid rust by CRW by ear insect treatment interaction also affected common rust severity in E97 and L97. ‘Jubilee’ hybrid (rust-susceptible) corn treated with both insecticides had greater common rust severity than nontreated Jubilee corn. Sweet corn yield was affected most by weed control in all environments, with the lowest yields occurring in cultivated plots. Sweet corn yield did not differ between the 1× and ⅓× herbicide treatments in all environments. The interaction among hybrid rust by CRW by ear insect treatments also affected yield in E97 and L97. An important component of this interaction was the CRW treatment, as sweet corn yield was higher in treated than nontreated plots. The interactions in this study indicate that the best chances for developing comprehensive thresholds for sweet corn pests in the Midwest are for CEW, ECB, and common rust.

Weed Biology and Ecology
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.


Abedon, B. G. and Tracy, W. F. 1996. Corngrass1 of maize (Zea mays L.) delays development of adult plant resistance to common rust (Puccinia sorghi Schw.) and European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner). J. Hered. 87:219223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abedon, B. G. and Tracy, W. F. 1998. Direct and indirect effects of fullsib recurrent selection for resistance to common rust (Puccinia sorghi Schw.) in three sweet corn populations. Crop Sci. 38:5661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altieri, M. A. and Whitcomb, W. H. 1983. Weed manipulation for insect pest management in corn. Environ. Manag. 4:483489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Wisconsin Vegetable Report. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service. 2 p.Google Scholar
Beard, R. L. 1943. The significance of growth stages of sweet corn as related to infestation by the European corn borer. Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 471:173199.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. K. and Turpin, F. T. 1984. Impact of corn planting date on the population dynamics of corn rootworms (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 13:898901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binning, L. K., Boerboom, C. M., Bundy, L. G., et al. 1998. Commercial Vegetable Production in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension Bull. A3422. pp. 90104.Google Scholar
Brust, G. E. 1990. Effects of below-ground predator-weed interactions on damage to peanut by southern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 19:18371844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caffrey, D. J. and Worthley, L. H. 1927. A Progress Report on Investigations of the European Corn Borer. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Bull. 1476. 155 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, L. B., Drapek, R. J., Croft, B. A., and Fisher, G. C. 1992. Relationship of corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pheromone catch and silking to infestation levels in Oregon sweet corn. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:240245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delahaut, K. A. and Wedberg, J. L. 1996. The Corn Earworm. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension Bull. A3655. 2 p.Google Scholar
Dillard, H. R. and Seem, R. C. 1990. Use of an action threshold for common maize rust to reduce crop loss in sweet corn. Phytopathology 80:846849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, T. R., Chiang, H. C., and Hibbs, E. T. 1958. Some Factors Influencing Populations of European Corn Borer in the North Central States. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bull. 229. 62 p.Google Scholar
Ferro, D. N. and Fletcher-Howell, G. 1985. Controlling European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on successionally planted sweet corn in western Massachusetts. J. Econ. Entomol. 78:902907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flood, B., Foster, R., and Hutchinson, B. 1995. Sweet corn. Pages 1940 In Flood, B. and Foster, R., eds. Vegetable Insect Management: With Emphasis on the Midwest. Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing.Google Scholar
Gates, D. J., Westcott, M., Burdon, J. J., and Alexander, H. M. 1986. Competition and stability in plant mixtures in the presence of disease. Oecologia 68:559566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez, A. P. and Wang, Y. H. 1984. Models for managing economic impact of pest populations in agricultural crops. Pages 729762 In Huffaker, C. B. and Rabb, R. L., eds. Ecological Entomology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and Wagner, C. R. 1994. Using estimates of weed pressure to establish crop yield loss equations. Weed Technol. 8:114118.Google Scholar
Hill, T. M. and Peters, D. C. 1971. A method of evaluating post-planting insecticide treatments for control of western corn rootworm larvae. J. Econ. Entomol. 64:764765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, T. B., Turpin, F. T., and Bergman, M. K. 1984. Effect of foxtail infestation on corn rootworm larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) under two corn planting dates. Environ. Entomol. 13:12451248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelling, K. A., Bundy, L. G., Combs, S. M., and Peters, J. B. 1997. Soil Test Recommendations for Field, Vegetable, and Fruit Crops. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension UWEX Publ. A2809. 70 p.Google Scholar
Kleppe, C. D. and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence-directed herbicides control wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:746752.Google Scholar
Mahindapala, A. 1978. Host and environmental effects on the infection of maize by Puccinia sorghi . II. Post-penetration development. Ann. Appl. Biol. 89:417421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, C. E., Rice, M. E., Calvin, D. D., et al. 1996. European Corn Borer: Ecology and Management. Ames, IA: North Central Regional Extension Bull 327. p. 57.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:9196.Google Scholar
Musick, G. J., Chiang, H. C., Luckmann, W. H., Mayo, Z. B., and Turpin, F. T. 1980. Impact of planting dates of field corn on beetle emergence and damage by the western and northern corn rootworms in the Corn Belt. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 73:207215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1997. Effect of timing and adjuvants on the efficacy of reduced herbicide rates for sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:720724.Google Scholar
Pataky, J. K. 1987. Quantitative relationships between sweet corn yield and common rust, Puccinia sorghi . Phytopathology 77:10661071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, N. D. 1989. Nitrogen, phosphate and potassium uptake rates by Puccinia lagenophorae Cooke-infected groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.). Pages 153180 In Boddy, L., Marchant, R., and Read, D. J., eds. Physiology and Ecology of Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Sulphur Utilization by Fungi. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, N. D. and Ayres, P. G. 1987. Water stress modifies intraspecific interference between rust (Puccinia lagenophorae Cooke)-infected and health groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.). New Phytol. 106:555566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, N. D., Ayres, P. G., and Hallet, S. G. 1993. Mycoherbicides and other biocontrol agents for Senecio spp. Pestic. Sci. 37:323329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavuk, D. M. and Stinner, B. R. 1991. Influence of weeds in corn plantings on population densities of and damage by second-generation Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larvae. Environ. Entomol. 20:276881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, L. C. 1987. Sweet corn. Pages 383398. In Pierce, L. C., ed. Vegetables, Characteristics, Production and Marketing. Toronto: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. 4th ed., Volume 1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. pp. 127131.Google Scholar
Showers, W. B., Berry, E. C., and Von Kaster, L. 1980. Management of 2nd-generation European corn borer by controlling moths outside the cornfield. J. Econ. Entomol. 73:8891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showers, W. B., DeRozari, M. B., Reed, G. L., and Shaw, R. H. 1978. Temperature-related climatic effects on survivorship of the European corn borer. Environ. Entomol. 7:717723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showers, W. B., Reed, G. L., Robinson, J. F., and DeRozari, M. B. 1976. Flight and sexual activity of the European corn borer. Environ. Entomol. 5:10991104.Google Scholar
Shurtleff, M. C., ed. 1980. Compendium of Corn Diseases. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society. 105 p.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., VanGessel, M. J., Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. 1999. Efficacy and crop response to glufosinate-based weed management in PAT-transformed sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:104111.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. and Cammell, M. E. 1981. Effects of weeds and weed control on invertebrate pest ecology. Pages 443458 In Thresh, J. M., ed. Pests, Pathogens and Vegetation: The Role of Weeds and Wild Plants in the Ecology of Crop Pests and Diseases. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
Witkowski, J. F., Wright, R. J., Meinke, L. J., Hein, G. L., and Jarvi, K. J. 1992. Evaluating Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Performance. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension NebGuide G92-1108-A. 3 p.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 12 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 15th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Interactions among weed, insect, and common rust treatments in sweet corn
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Interactions among weed, insect, and common rust treatments in sweet corn
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Interactions among weed, insect, and common rust treatments in sweet corn
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *