Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:23:45.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy  and
Marcos J. Oliveira
Marcos J. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, Clemson University, 277 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Blackville, SC, in 2002 and 2003 and near Pendleton, SC, in 2003 to compare the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in narrow- (48 cm) and wide-row (97 cm) corn. A series of treatments of increasing duration of weed interference and length of weed-free period were imposed within each row spacing. Diversity and density of the weed spectrum were greater at Blackville than at Pendleton. Weed interference duration and weed-free period curves were similar between row widths for each of the 3 site-years. Averaged over row width, the CPWC was 36 to 40 d longer at Blackville than at Pendleton. The CPWC began 5 to 9 d after corn emergence (DAE) (one- to two-leaf stage) and ended 45 to 53 DAE (eight- to 10-leaf stage) at Blackville. At Pendleton, the CPWC was only 4 d, beginning 21 DAE (five-leaf stage) and ending 25 DAE (five- to six-leaf stage). Light interception by corn at Blackville at the end of the CPWC averaged 78%, but light interception averaged only 31% at Pendleton at the end of the CPWC, implying that the weed density or weed spectrum may be more of a determinate of the CPWC than canopy formation. Light interception was similar between row widths throughout the growing season, resulting in similar late-season weed biomass between row widths. The CPWC and crop competitiveness with late-emerging weeds was similar between wide- and narrow-row corn when corn light interception did not differ between row widths. Therefore, other strategies, such as increasing the population of narrow-row corn, are likely needed to provide a competitive advantage over wider rows.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Asgrow 897 Roundup Ready’Critical periodintegrated weed managementweed interference duration
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 802 - 807
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

Anderson, R. L. 2000. Cultural system to aid weed management in semiarid corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 14:630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, D. G., Nielson, R. L., and Nyquist, W. E. 1988. A growth analysis comparison of corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacings. Crop Sci 28:254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. Z., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankership, E. E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci 51:408–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric 7:161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:737–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. A. and Hoverstad, T. R. 2002. Effect of row spacing and herbicide application timing on weed control and grain yield in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. A., Chandler, J. M., Morrison, J. E. Jr., Senseman, S. A., and Tingle, C. H. 2001. Glufosinate combinations and row spacing for weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period of weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns on intrarow cultivation and competition between corn and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci 44:865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2004. Small grain cover crop interaction with glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 18:52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration, and yield in corn. Agron. J 81:167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. M., Hicks, D. R., Lueschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Warnes, D. D., and Hoverstad, T. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern corn belt. J. Prod. Agric 10:293–300.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 Technol 15:517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol 9:113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. 1998. Influence of corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) yield. Weed Sci 46:447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2001. Effect of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth. Weed Technol 15:413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westgate, M. E., Forcella, F., Reicosky, D. C., and Somsen, J. 1997. Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern US corn belt: radiation-use efficiency and grain yield. Field Crops Res 49:249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar