Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T12:17:57.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual Weeds of Processing Sweet Corn in the North Central Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
Tom L. Rabaey  and
Chris M. Boerboom
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Tom L. Rabaey
Affiliation:
Green Giant Agricultural Research, 1201 N. 4th St., LeSueur, MN 56058
Chris M. Boerboom
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Martin.Williams@ARS.USDA.GOV.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge of weed community structure in vegetable crops of the north central region (NCR) is poor. To characterize weed species composition present at harvest (hereafter called residual weeds) in processing sweet corn, 175 fields were surveyed in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from 2005 to 2007. Weed density was enumerated by species in thirty 1-m2 quadrats placed randomly along a 300- to 500-m loop through the field, and additional species observed outside quadrats were also recorded. Based on weed community composition, population density, and mean plant size, overall weed interference level was rated. A total of 56 residual weed species were observed and no single species dominated the community of NCR processing sweet corn. Several of the most abundant species, such as common lambsquarters and velvetleaf, have been problems for many years, while other species, like wild-proso millet, have become problematic in only the last 20 yr. Compared to a survey of weeds in sweet corn more than 40 yr ago, greater use of herbicides is associated with reductions in weed density by approximately an order of magnitude; however, 57% of fields appeared to suffer yield loss due to weeds. Sweet corn harvest in the NCR ranges from July into early October. Earlier harvests were characterized by some of the highest weed densities, while late-emerging weeds such as eastern black nightshade occurred in fields harvested after August. Fall panicum, giant foxtail, wild-proso millet, common lambsquarters, and velvetleaf were the most abundant species across the NCR, yet each state had some unique dominant weeds.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALeastern black nightshade, Solanum ptychantum Dunal. SOLPTfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. PANDIgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTHwild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. PANMIsweet corn, Zea mays L.Densityfrequencyinterferenceoccurrencerelative abundancevegetableweed communitiesuniformityweed survey
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 646 - 653
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

Alex, J. F. 1964. Weeds of tomato and corn fields in two regions of Ontario. Weed Res 4:308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2003. Sweet corn pest management strategic plan. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/ncsweetcorn.pdf. Accessed: November 15, 2003.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006. Vegetables 2005 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 17–69.Google Scholar
Azanza, F., Bar-Zur, A., and Juvik, J. A. 1996. Variation in sweet corn kernel characteristics associated with stand establishment and eating quality. Euphytica 87:7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Effect of date of preplant tillage and planting on weed populations and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, J. E. and Johnson, W. G. 2006. Survey of broadleaf winter weeds in Indiana production fields infested with soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines). Weed Technol 20:1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, S. A. and Andersen, K. A. 2004. Distinct roles of surveys, inventories, and monitoring in adaptive weed management. Weed Technol 18:1449–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:1337–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:1065–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2006. Farmer perceptions of weed problems in corn and soybean rotation systems. Weed Technol 20:751–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2002. Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergent application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn. Weed Technol 16:488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. New York: Academic Press. 705–748.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and McNevin, G. R. 1990. Combining cultural practices and herbicides to control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Technol 4:433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, R. L., Dufault, R. J., and Phillips, T. L. 2003. Low-temperature germination response of su, se, and sh2 sweet corn cultivars. HortTechnol 13:136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillger, D. E., Weller, S. C., Maynard, E. T., and Gibson, K. D. Emergent weed communities associated with tomato production systems in Indiana. Weed Sci 54:1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, M., Cavers, P. B., Kane, M., and Thompson, K. 1996. Role of the pigmented seed coat of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in imbibition, germination and seed persistence. Seed Sci. Res 7:21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleppe, C. D. and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence-directed herbicides control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 5:746–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCully, K. V., Sampson, M. G., and Watson, A. K. 1991. Weed survey of Nova Scotia lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Weed Sci 39:180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 2002. WeedSOFT®. Version 7.1. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Cooperative Extension Publication CD5, University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Weed species-area relationships as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci 49:217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Chicago, IL: Irwin. 1408.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci 32:327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Zandstra, J., and Sikkema, P. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol 16:421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., and Schultheis, J. R. 1994. Effect of nicosulfuron applied postemergence and post-directed on sweet corn (Zea mays) tolerance. Weed Technol 8:630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenk, M. D., Braunworth, W. S. Jr., Fernandez, R. J., Curtis, D. W., and McGrath, D. 1990. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 4:440–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Sci 33:34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Dale, M. R. T. 1991. Weed community structure in spring-seeded crops in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci 71:1069–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treat, C. L. and Tracy, W. F. 1994. Endosperm type effects on biomass production and on stalk and root quality in sweet corn. Crop Sci 34:396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J. Y., Knezevic, S. Z., and Frick, B. L. 2000. Comparison of weed communities in Manitoba ecoregions and crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:963–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol 11:308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 14:377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci 54:928–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2008a. Differential tolerance in sweet corn to wild-proso millet interference. Weed Sci 55:91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2008b. Crop competitive ability contributes to herbicide performance in sweet corn. Weed Res 48:58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Lindquist, J. L. 2007. Influence of planting date and weed interference on sweet corn growth and development. Agron. J. 99:1066–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Masiunas, J. B. 2006. Functional relationships between giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference and sweet corn yield and ear traits. Weed Sci 54:948–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar