Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T11:07:44.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

S. Kent Harrison ,
Emilie E. Regnier ,
Jerron T. Schmoll  and
Jason E. Webb
Jerron T. Schmoll
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
Jason E. Webb
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted to determine the effects of giant ragweed emergence time and population density on corn grain yield, giant ragweed seed production, and giant ragweed predispersal seed losses. When weeds and crop emerged concurrently, hyperbolic regression of percent corn yield loss on giant ragweed population densities of 1.7, 6.9, and 13.8 weeds per 10 m2 gave a predicted loss rate of 13.6% for the first weed per 10 m2 in the linear response range at low densities and a maximum yield loss of 90% at high weed densities. Crop yield loss response to weed density was linear when giant ragweed emerged 4 wk after corn, and the regression coefficient indicated a yield loss rate of 1% per unit increase in weed density. A larger proportion of the variation in corn yield loss was explained by weed density (r2 = 0.99) than by weed biomass (r2 = 0.81). There was a positive linear relationship between giant ragweed seed production and weed density at each weed emergence time. When giant ragweed emerged with corn, regression equations for 1997 and 1998 gave a predicted seed rain of 146 and 238 seeds m−2 per unit increase in weed density, respectively. In both years when giant ragweed emerged 4 wk after corn, predicted seed rain was 16 seeds m−2 per unit increase in weed density. Viability of total giant ragweed seed was 56 and 38% in 1997 and 1998, respectively, and was not affected by weed emergence time or weed density. Feeding by insect larvae accounted for 13 to 19% of giant ragweed seed viability losses. Granivorous insects infesting giant ragweed seed were identified as a fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae), two weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and a moth (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae).

Keywords

Fruit fly, Euaresta festiva (Loew)moth, Chionodes mediofuscellaweevil, Smicronyx flavicans and Conotrachelus geminatuscorn, Zea mays L.giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRInsect feedingpopulation dynamicsseed granivoryseed predationseed productionbromoxynildimethenamidglyphosatenicosulfuronparaquatAMBTR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 224 - 229
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

Abul-Fatih, H. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979a. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. I. Influence of species removal on the organization of the plant community. New Phytol. 83:813–816.Google Scholar
Abul-Fatih, H. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979b. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. II. Germination, emergence, growth and survival. New Phytol. 83:817–827.Google Scholar
Abul-Fatih, H. A., Bazzaz, F. A., and Hunt, R. 1979. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. III. Growth and biomass allocation. New Phytol. 83:829–838.Google Scholar
Amatangelo, J. 1974. Infestation of seeds of Ambrosia trifida, giant ragweed, by larval insects. Bios 45–47:15–18.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:1002–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1991. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:358–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density in corn. Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Bussler, B. H., Maxwell, B. D., and Puettmann, K. J. 1995. Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci. 43:586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional- and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 43:81–87.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252 Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Doyle, C. J., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1986. Modelling the economics of controlling Avena fatua in winter wheat. Pestic. Sci. 17:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, J. C., Kells, J. J., Swinton, S. M., and Renner, K. A. 1997. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, B. A. 1965. Biololgy and immature stages of eastern ragweed flies (Tephritidae). Proc. North Cent. Branch Entomol. Soc. Am. 20:105–106.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Peterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn. Weed Technol. 10:535–541.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Pages 467–471 In Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Hartnett, D. C., Hartnett, B. B., and Bazzaz, F. A. 1987. Persistence of Ambrosia trifida populations in old fields and responses to successional changes. Am. J. Bot. 74:1239–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1985. Weed survey of the north central weed control conference. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 42:344–355.Google Scholar
Jurik, T. W. 1991. Population distributions of plant size and light environment of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) at three densities. Oecologia 87:539–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observation on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1984. Weed thresholds in relation to long-term population dynamics. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 37:38–44.Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2000. Section A-B, “Asteraceae” In Peters, J., ed. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. 2nd ed. Lincoln, NE: Association if Official Seed Analysts Contribution 29.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. 1951a. Larvae of Insects. Part I: Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Bros. 315 p.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. 1951b. Larvae of Insects. Part II: Coleoptera, Diptera, Neuroptera, Siphonaptera, Mecoptera, Trichoptera. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Bros. 416 p.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E., Harrison, S. K., and Schmoll, J. T. 1999. Identification and characterization of seed-borne insect pests of Ambrosia trifida . Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:173.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Wax, L. M., and Nafziger, E. D. 1985. Weed interference in soybeans. Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1974. Periodicitiy of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42:103–109.Google Scholar
Vitolo, D. B. and Stiles, E. W. 1987. The effect of density of Ambrosia trifida L. on seed predation by Euaresta festiva (Loew) (Dipera: Tephritidae). J. N.Y. Entomol. Soc. 95:491–494.Google Scholar
Washitani, I. and Nishiyama, S. 1992. Effects of seed size and seedling emergence time on the fitness componenets of Ambrosia trifida and A. artemisiaefolia var. elatior in competition with grass perennials. Plant Species Biol. 7:11–19.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:559–564.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39:217–220.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Pages 353–360, 431–436 In Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar