Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:43:01.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) interference in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephanie R. Deines ,
J. Anita Dille ,
Eric L. Blinka ,
David L. Regehr  and
Scott A. Staggenborg
Stephanie R. Deines
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Eric L. Blinka
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
David L. Regehr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Scott A. Staggenborg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multiple weed species in the field combine to cause yield losses and can be described using one of several empirical models. Field studies were conducted to compare observed corn yield loss caused by common sunflower and shattercane populations with predicted yield losses modeled using a multiple species rectangular hyperbola model, an additive model, or the yield loss model in the decision support system, WeedSOFT, and to derive competitive indices for common sunflower and shattercane. Common sunflower and shattercane emerged with corn and selected densities established in field experiments at Scandia and Rossville, KS, between 2000 and 2002. The multiple species rectangular hyperbola model fit pooled data from three of five location–years with a predicted maximum corn yield loss of 60%. Initial slope parameter estimate for common sunflower was 49.2 and 4.2% for shattercane. A ratio of these estimates indicated that common sunflower was 11 times more competitive than shattercane. When common sunflower was assigned a competitive index (CI) value of 10, shattercane CI was 0.9. Predicted yield losses modeled for separate common sunflower or shattercane populations were additive when compared with observed yield losses caused by low-density mixed populations of common sunflower (0 to 0.5 plants m−2) and shattercane (0 to 4 plants m−2). However, a ratio of estimates of these models indicated that common sunflower was only four times as competitive as shattercane, with a CI of 2.5 for shattercane. The yield loss model in WeedSOFT underpredicted the same corn losses by 7.5%. Clearly, both the CI for shattercane and the yield loss model in WeedSOFT need to be reevaluated, and the multiple species rectangular hyperbola model is proposed.

Keywords

Common sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. HELANshattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench SORVUcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Asgrow 770RR’, ‘Asgrow RX740RR’, ‘Garst 8349RR’, ‘Midland 7B05RR’Additivitycompetitive indexmixed weed populationsweed densityWeedSOFT®yield loss
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 6 , December 2004 , pp. 976 - 983
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Allen, J. R., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., and Kremer, R. J. 2000. ALS-resistant Helianthus annuus interference in Glycine max . Weed Sci 48:461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Mortensen, D. A., Wicks, G. A., Hayden, T. A., and Martin, A. R. 1991. Environmental variability associated with economic thresholds for soybeans. Weed Sci 39:564–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1988. Interference of four annual weeds in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 36:764–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol 6:898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 6:533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 458–517.Google Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, F. W. 1992. Shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 40:68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geier, P. W., Maddux, L. D., Moshier, L. J., and Stahlman, P. W. 1996. Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 10:317–321.Google Scholar
Hans, S. R. and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Influence of shattercane [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] interference on corn (Zea mays L.) yield and nitrogen accumulation. Weed Technol 16:787–791.Google Scholar
Irons, S. M. and Burnside, O. C. 1982. Competitive and allelopathic effects of sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci 30:372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[KSU] Kansas State University. 2002. Research and Extension. Manhattan, KS: Weather Data Library.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci 44:309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeser, C., Dille, J. A., Krishnan, G., Mortensen, D. A., Rawlinson, J. T., Martin, A. R., and Bills, L. B. 2004. WeedSOFT®: a weed management decision support system. Weed Sci 52:115–122.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 135–153.Google Scholar
Roeth, F., Martin, A., and Robert, K. 1996. Shattercane and Its Control. NebGuide. www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/weeds/g1205.htm.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 29:128–133.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 30:514–519.Google Scholar
Sims, B. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Mutual influences of seedling johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 38:139–147.Google Scholar
Street, J. E., Snipes, C. E., McGuire, J. A., and Buchanan, G. A. 1985. Competition of a binary weed system with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 33:807–809.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994a. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci 42:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Sterns, J., Renner, K., and Kells, J. 1994b. Estimating Weed-Crop Interference Parameters for Weed Management Models. Research Report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University. 20 p.Google Scholar
Toler, J. E., Guice, J. B., and Murdock, E. C. 1996. Interference between johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:331–338.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J 83:413–417.Google Scholar