Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:57:56.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays) Population and Row Spacing on Light Interception, Corn Yield, and Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brent E. Tharp  and
James J. Kells
Brent E. Tharp
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kells@pilot.msu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management of corn (Zea mays) row spacings and populations has been used for many years to increase corn productivity. In 1998 and 1999, nonirrigated corn was grown in 38-, 56-, and 76-cm row spacings at populations averaging 59,300, 72,900, and 83,900 plants/ha in Michigan. Glufosinate at 0.29 kg/ha was applied to common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) averaging 5 cm in height in each plot. Corn population and row spacing did not influence weed emergence following application of glufosinate. Common lambsquarters biomass and seed production were reduced when grown under canopies of corn planted in populations exceeding 72,900 plants/ha. Common lambsquarters biomass was reduced as corn row spacings were reduced from 76 to 38 cm. Early-season interception of photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) by corn canopies increased as row spacings decreased, but differences were not apparent later in the season. Interception of PAR was similar throughout the season when corn populations exceeded 72,900 plants/ha. Corn yields were not affected by row spacing, but they were increased with corn populations of 72,900 plants/ha or higher.

Keywords

Glufosinatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L,. # CHEALcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DK 493GR’Crop densityherbicide-tolerant cropsnarrow-row cornPARphotosynthetic active radiation
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 413 - 418
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

Alessi, J. and Power, J. F. 1974. Effects of plant population, row spacing, and relative maturity on dryland corn in the northern plains. I. Corn forage and grain yield. Agron. J. 66: 316–319.Google Scholar
Bullock, D. G., Nielsen, R. L., and Nyquist, W. E. 1988. A growth analysis comparison of corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacing. Crop Sci. 28: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. J. 1997. Corn silage and grain yield responses to plant densities. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) competition and time of removal in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 358–364.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
Fulton, J. M. 1970. Relationships among soil moisture stress, plant populations, row spacing and yield of corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50: 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Hoverstad, T. R., and Greenwald, R. E. 1998. Integrated weed management using narrow corn row spacing, herbicides, and cultivation. Agron. J. 90: 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. and Karlen, D. L. 1994. Plant spacing and reflected farred light effects on phytochrome-regulated photosynthate allocation in corn seedlings. Crop Sci. 34: 1564–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehl, R. O. 1994. Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 686 p.Google Scholar
Lutz, J. A., Camper, H. M., and Jones, G. D. 1971. Row spacing and population effects on corn yields. Agron. J. 63: 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 41: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 1999. Seasonal abundance and spatial pattern of Setaria faberi, Chenopodium album, and Abutilon theophrasti in reduced-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci. 47: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunez, R. and Kamprath, E. 1969. Relationships between N response, plant population, and row width on growth and yield of corn. Agron. J. 61: 279–282.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
Polito, T. A. and Voss, R. D. 1991. Corn yield response to varied producer controlled factors and weather in high yield environments. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. M., Hicks, D. R., Lueschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Warnes, D. D., and Hoverstad, T. R. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern corn belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. E. 1988. Persistence and transformation of the herbicide (14C)glufosinate-ammonium in prairie soils under laboratory conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 36: 393–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Responses of maize to plant population density. I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron. J. 80: 930–935.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13: 807–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron J. 86: 591–595.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