Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6f8dk Total loading time: 0.389 Render date: 2021-03-05T21:08:39.557Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Using Plant Volume to Quantify Interference in Corn (Zea mays) Neighborhoods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Brett H. Bussler
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Klaus J. Puettmann
Affiliation:
Dep. Forest Res., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108

Abstract

Measurements of above-ground plant volume were used to quantify corn interference with common cocklebur and velvetleaf. Separate experiments were carried out for each weed species in which neighborhoods with a radius of 50 cm were established around target plants of both species, selected from a range of corn plus cocklebur or velvetleaf densities. Height and canopy area of target plants and neighbor corn and weed populations were measured periodically during the growing season. Target plant (corn, cocklebur, or velvetleaf) size as well as corn and weed population size within each neighborhood were quantified as cylindrical volumes. Regression analysis was used to quantify the relationship between target plant seed production and cylindrical volumes of the target and neighbor species. Both target and neighbor plant volumes were correlated with target plant seed production for all species. The ratio of target plant volume to total neighborhood plant volume (volume ratio) was the independent variable that accounted for the most variation in target plant seed production. These volume-based variables may be used to develop competitive indices in physico-empirical based interference models.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Aarssen, L. W. 1989. Competitive ability and species coexistence: a plant's-eye view. Oikos 56:386401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Aarssen, L. W. and Clauss, M. J. 1992. Genotypic variation in fecundity allocation in Arabidopsis thaliana . J. Ecol. 80:109114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reductions from weeds. Weed Technol. 1:199206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1988. Interference of four annual weeds in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:764769.Google Scholar
5. Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1987. On the analysis of competition at the level of the individual plant Oecologia 71:308317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Goldberg, D. E. 1987. Neighborhood competition in an old-field plant community. Ecol. 68:12111223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. van Groenendoel, J. M. 1988. Patchy distribution of weeds and some implications for modelling population dynamics: a short literature review. Weed Res. 28:437441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kawano, S. and Miyake, S. 1983. The productive and reproductive biology of flowering plants. X. Reproductive energy allocation and propagule output of five congeners of the genus Setaria (Gramineae). Oecologia 57:613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kira, T., Ogawa, H., and Sakazaki, N. 1953. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. I. Competition-yield-density interrelationships in regularly dispersed populations. J. Inst. Polytech., Osaka City Univ. Series D 4:126.Google Scholar
11. Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28:465471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: relations amongst weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40:296301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Lee, T. D. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1982. Regulation of fruit and seed production in an annual legume, Cassia fasiculata . Ecol. 63:13631373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Maxwell, B. D., Puettmann, K., and Bussler, B. H. 1993. Weeds in the hood (WITH): neighborhood model for simulation of interference between corn and weeds. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:52.Google Scholar
16. Ohlson, M. 1988. Size dependent reproduction effort in three populations of Saxafraga hirculus in Sweden. J. Ecol. 76:10071016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Pacala, S. W. and Silander, J. A. 1987. Neighborhood interference among velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Oikos 48:217224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Samson, D. A. and Werk, K. S. 1986. Size dependent effects in the analysis of reproductive effort in plants. Am. Naturalist. 127:667680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. SAS. 1988. Proc NUN. Pages 676712, in SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 1028 pp.Google Scholar
21. Spitters, C. J. T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:111.Google Scholar
22. Thompson, B. K., Weiner, J., and Warwick, S. I. 1991. Size-dependent reproductive output in agricultural weeds. Can. J. Bot. 69:442446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Tilman, D. 1982. What are resources?, Pages 1142 in Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 296 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
24. Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecol. 72:685700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Wagner, R. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1991. Neighborhood predictors of interspecific competition in young Douglas-fir plantations. Can. J. For. Res. 21:821828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Watkinson, A. R., Lonsdale, W.M., and Firbank, L. G. 1983. A neighborhood approach to self-thinning. Oecologia 56:381384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Weiner, J. 1982. A neighborhood model of annual-plant interference. Ecol. 63:12371241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Weiner, J. 1984. Neighborhood interference amongst Pinus rigida individuals. J. Ecol. 72:183195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Weiner, J. 1985. Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecol. 66:743752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. White, J. and Harper, J. L. 1970. Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. J. Ecol. 58:476485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Zobel, B. J. and Van Buijtenen, J. P. 1989. Wood Variation: Its Causes and Control. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 263 p.CrossRefGoogle 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: 4 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th June 2017 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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.

Using Plant Volume to Quantify Interference in Corn (Zea mays) Neighborhoods
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.

Using Plant Volume to Quantify Interference in Corn (Zea mays) Neighborhoods
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.

Using Plant Volume to Quantify Interference in Corn (Zea mays) Neighborhoods
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *