Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:10:02.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Planting Patterns and Inter-row Cultivation on Competition Between Corn (Zea mays) and Late Emerging Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephen D. Murphy ,
Yussif Yakubu ,
Stephan F. Weise  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Stephen D. Murphy
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph. ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Yussif Yakubu
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph. ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Stephan F. Weise
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph. ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph. ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
*
*Corresponding author CSwanton@crop.UOGUELPH.CA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Narrower corn row widths, higher crop densities, and interrow cultivation may be used as part of integrated weed management (IWM). During a three-year study, we tested whether these factors affected corn growth, development and grain yield at final harvest, and weed biomass when weeds were late-emerging (after the three-leaf stage of corn). Increasing corn density from 7 to 10 plants m−2 or decreasing row width from 75 to 50 cm significantly increased corn leaf area index (LAI), and reduced photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) available for a mixture of weed species located below the corn canopy. Narrower rows and higher corn density significantly reduced biomass of late-emerging weeds. Corn yields increased significantly (10 to 15%) only when narrower rows were used. Intraspecific competition between corn plants in the higher density significantly reduced early corn growth and offset any gain in yield from reduced weed competition. In comparison to plots where late-emerging weeds grew uncontrolled, interrow cultivation did not decrease biomass of late-emerging weeds, hence did not increase corn yield. We recommend using narrower row widths to reduce weed competition and increase corn yield. Increased corn densities had no net yield benefit. Early-season weed management is crucial as the later-emerging weeds were less important in terms of their effect on yield.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.Inter-row cultivationintegrated weed management
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 865 - 870
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Chikoye, D. and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Evaluation of three empirical models depicting common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) competition in white bean. Weed Res. 35: 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia arlemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Weed Sci. 43: 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 44: 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, L. M., Tollenaar, M., and Stewart, D. W. 1991. Changes in plant density dependence on leaf photosynthesis of maize hybrids. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59: 585–601.Google Scholar
Eadie, A. G., Swanton, C. J., Shaw, J. E., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. Banded herbicide applications and cultivation in a modified no-till corn (Zea mays) system. Weed Technol. 6: 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girardin, P. and Tollenaar, M. 1994. Effects of intraspecific interference on maize leaf azimuth. Crop Sci. 34: 151–155.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
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Comparison of empirical models depicting density of Amaranthus retroflexus, and relative leaf area as predictors of yield loss in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Res. 35: 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Vossen, F.J.H., Spitters, C.J.T., and de Groot, W. 1984. Competition between a maize crop and a natural population of Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 32: 324–327.Google Scholar
Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41: 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S.F. 1993a. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 41: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Swanton, C. J., Weise, S. F., and Tollenaar, M. 1993b. Effect of corn-induced shading and temperature on rate of leaf appearance in redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 41: 590–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Murphy, S. D., Tollenaar, M., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Light limitation of reproduction and variation in the allometric relationship between reproductive and vegetative biomass in Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed). J. Appl. Ecol. 32: 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mock, J. J. and Heghin, L. C. 1976. Performance of maize hybrids grown in conventional row and randomly distributed planting patterns. Agron. J. 68: 577–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. 1989. Planting and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration and yield in corn. Agron. J. 81: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remison, S. U. 1980. Competitive effects of weeds on maize under varying N fertilization in the southern Guinea savannah zone of Nigeria. African J. Agric. Sci. 7: 105–113.Google Scholar
Sandoval-Avila, D. M., Michaels, T. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of tillage practice and planting pattern on performance of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74: 801–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarsbrook, C. E. and Doss, B. D. 1973. Leaf area index and radiation as related to corn yield. Agron. J. 15: 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of IWM in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44: 437–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetio-Kagho, F., and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Response of maize to plant population density. 1. Canopy development, light relations and vegetative growth. Agron. J. 80: 930–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1977. Sink source relationships during reproductive development in maize. Maydica 22: 49–75.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1992. Is low plant density a stress in maize? Maydica 37: 305–311.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994a. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86: 591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994b. Effect of weed interference and soil nitrogen on four maize hybrids. Agron. J. 86: 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heemst, H.D.J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agric. Syst. 18: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weersink, A., Walker, M., Swanton, C., and Shaw, J. 1992a. Economic comparison of alternative tillage systems under risk. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 40: 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weersink, A., Walker, M., Swanton, C., and Shaw, J. E. 1992b. Costs of conventional and conservation tillage systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47: 328–334.Google Scholar
Williams, W. A., Loomis, R. S., Duncan, W. G., Dovert, A., and Nunez, F. 1968. Canopy architecture at various population densities and the growth and grain yield of corn. Crop Sci. 8: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, D. W., Henderson, D. W., Hsiao, T. C., and Alvino, A. 1988a. Interactive water and nitrogen effects on senescence of maize. I. Leaf area duration, nitrogen distribution, and yield. Agron. J. 80: 859–864.Google Scholar
Wolfe, D. W., Henderson, D. W., Hsiao, T. C., and Alvino, A. 1988b. Interactive water and nitrogen effects on senescence of maize. II. Photosynthetic decline and longevity of individual leaves. Agron. J. 80: 865–870.Google Scholar
Yao, A.Y.M. and Shaw, R. H. 1964. Effect of plant population and planting pattern of corn on distribution of net radiation. Agron. J. 56: 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar