Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:19:43.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maize Dwarf Mosaic Can Reduce Weed Suppressive Ability of Sweet Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II  and
Jerald K. Pataky
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Global Change, and Photosynthesis Research
Jerald K. Pataky
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mmwillms@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maize dwarf mosaic (MDM) stunts corn growth, delays development, and is the most prevalent viral disease of sweet corn grown in many regions of North America and Europe. Although some weeds escape control in most sweet corn fields, the extent to which MDM influences the weed suppressive ability of the crop is unknown. Field studies were conducted over a 3-yr period to characterize the influence of variable MDM incidence in sweet corn on growth, fecundity, and germinability of wild-proso millet, a common weed in the crop. Treatments included five levels of MDM incidence (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of plants infected) in two MDM-susceptible hybrids differing in weed suppressive ability. Previous research showed that hybrid ‘Legacy’ had greater weed suppressive ability than ‘Sugar Buns’. Wild-proso millet biomass and fecundity depended largely on the hybrid in which the weed was growing. Wild-proso millet growing in Sugar Buns weighed 45 to 117% more than wild-proso millet in Legacy. Incidence of MDM in sweet corn affected wild-proso millet biomass and fecundity, but only under high weed population densities. When wild-proso millet was observed at 122 plants m−2, weed biomass increased 9 g m−2 for each additional 10% incidence of MDM of sweet corn. Weed suppressive ability of the competitive and less competitive hybrids were influenced to the same extent by MDM. Coupled with a lack of resistance to MDM in two-thirds of commercial sweet corn hybrids, the disease could be an additional factor perpetuating weed growth and fecundity in sweet corn, particularly in fields with high population densities of wild-proso millet.

Keywords

Wild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum Lsweet corn, Zea mays L., ‘Legacy’, ‘Sugar Buns’Competitiondisease susceptibilitygerminationmaternal environmentweed suppressive ability
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 577 - 582
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

Arny, D. C., Grau, C. R., and Suleman, P. E. 1980. Occurrence of maize dwarf mosaic in Wisconsin and reaction of sweet corn plant introduction accessions and commercial hybrids. Plant Dis. 64:85–87.Google Scholar
Ayers, J. E., Boyle, J. S., and Gordon, D. T. 1978. The occurrence of maize chlorotic dwarf and maize dwarf mosaic viruses in Pennsylvania in 1977. Plant Dis. Rep. 62:820–821.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. L. and Hopen, H. J. 1985. A comparison of the biology of wild and cultivated proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 33:795–799.Google Scholar
Chang, C. M., Hooker, A. L., and Lim, S. M. 1977. An inoculation technique for determining Stewart's bacterial leaf blight reaction in corn. Plant Dis. Rep. 61:1077–1079.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. and Wayne, P. 1996. Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia. 108:311–320.Google Scholar
Cox, H. R., Coville, F. V., and Talbot, M. W. 1931. Weeds: How To Control Them. Washington, DC United States Department of Agriculture Farmers Bulletin 660.29 p.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Williams, M. M. II. 2007. Variation in wild proso millet fecundity in sweet corn has residual effects in snap bean. Weed Sci. 55:502–507.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. and Doohan, D. J. 2008. The challenges of specialty crop weed control, future directions. Weed Technol. 22:364–372.Google Scholar
Forster, R. L., Stoltz, R. L., Fenwick, H. S., and Simpson, W. R. 1980. Maize dwarf mosaic virus in Idaho. Plant Dis. 64:410–411.Google Scholar
Gates, D. W. and Gudauskas, R. T. 1969. Photosynthesis, respiration, and evidence of a metabolic inhibitor in corn infected with maize dwarf mosaic virus. Phytopathology. 59:575–580.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior year's weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:611–614.Google Scholar
Jones, M. W., Redinbaugh, M. G., and Louie, R. 2007. The Mdm1 locus and maize resistance to Maize dwarf mosaic virus. Plant Dis. 91:185–190.Google Scholar
Kerns, M. R. and Pataky, J. K. 1997. Reactions of sweet corn hybrids with resistance to maize dwarf mosaic. Plant Dis. 81:460–464.Google Scholar
McDonald, A. J., Riha, S. J., and DiTommaso, A. 2010. Early season height differences as robust predictors of weed growth potential in maize: new avenues for adaptive management? Weed Res. 50:110–119.Google Scholar
Mikel, M. A., D'Arcy, C. J., Rhodes, A. M., and Ford, R. E. 1981a. Yield loss in sweet corn correlated with time of inoculation with maize dwarf mosaic virus. Plant Dis. 65:902–903.Google Scholar
Mikel, M. A., D'Arcy, C. J., Rhodes, A. M., and Ford, R. E. 1981b. Yield response of sweet corn to maize dwarf mosaic virus. Plant Dis. 65:900–901.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E. and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Corn competition alters the germinability of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 53:479–488.Google Scholar
Olson, A. J., Pataky, J. K., D'Arcy, C. J., and Ford, R. E. 1990. Effects of drought stress and infection by maize dwarf mosaic. Plant Dis. 74:147–151.Google Scholar
Pataky, J. K., Williams, M. M. II, Headrick, J. M., Nankam, C., du Toit, L. J., and Michener, P. M. 2011. Observations from a quarter century of evaluating reactions of sweet corn hybrids in disease nurseries. Plant Dis. 95:1492–1506.Google Scholar
Place, G. T., Reberg-Horton, S. C., Carter, T. E. Jr., and Smith, A. N. 2011. Effects of soybean seed size on weed competition. Agron. J. 103:175–181.Google Scholar
Schwinning, S. and Weiner, J. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia. 113:447–455.Google Scholar
So, Y. F., Williams, M. M. II, Pataky, J. K., and Davis, A. S. 2009. Principal canopy factors of sweet corn and relationships to competitive ability with wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 57:296–303.Google Scholar
SYSTAT Software Inc., 2004. SYSTAT 11.0. Richmand, CA SYSTAT Software Inc.Google Scholar
Weiner, J., Andersen, S. B., Wille, W. K. M., Griepentrog, H. W., and Olsen, J. M. 2010. Evolutionary agroecology: the potential for cooperative, high density, weed-suppressing cereals. Evol. Applic. 3:473–479.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, 2010. Biological significance of low weed population densities on sweet corn. Agron. J. 102:464–468.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2008a. Crop competitive ability contributes to herbicide performance in sweet corn. Weed Res. 48:58–67.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., Peachey, R. E., and Robinson, D. E. 2011. Performance consistency of reduced atrazine use in sweet corn. Field Crops Res. 121:96–104.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2008b. Residual weeds of processing sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol. 22:646–653.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Schutte, B. J., and So, Y. F. 2012. Maternal corn environment influences wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) seed characteristics. Weed Sci. 60:69–74.Google Scholar