Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T00:04:05.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jason C. Fausey ,
James J. Kells ,
Scott M. Swinton  and
Karen A. Renner
Jason C. Fausey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
James J. Kells
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Scott M. Swinton
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted at East Lansing, MI, in 1994 and 1995 to examine corn yield response to giant foxtail interference and to examine the effect of giant foxtail density on giant foxtail biomass, seed production, and seed germination. Treatments consisted of 0, 10, 30, 60, 84, and 98 giant foxtail plants m−1 of row in 1994 and 0, 10, 27, 30, 60, and 69 plants m−1 of row in 1995. The influence of giant foxtail density on corn yield fit a hyperbolic equation. Corn yields were reduced 13% in 1994 and 14% in 1995 from 10 giant foxtail plants m−1 of row. Corn dry matter at maturity was decreased 24 and 23% from 10 giant foxtail plants m−1 of row in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Giant foxtail seed production increased linearly as inflorescence length increased. The length of a single giant foxtail inflorescence increased as plant density increased and the number of inflorescence produced per plant decreased. Giant foxtail seed production ranged from 518 to 2,544 seeds per plant. Ten giant foxtail plants m−1 of row produced 15,700 seeds m−2. Giant foxtail seed germination was not affected by plant density.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAcorn, Zea mays L., ‘Pioneer 3573’Bioeconomic modelcompetitionSETFA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 256 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Anonymous. 1995. Biological and ecological basis for weed management decision support systems to reduce herbicide use. NC202 Regional Research Project Proposal. 22 p.Google Scholar
Barbour, J. C. III. and Forcella, F. 1993. Predicting seed production by foxtails (Setaria spp.). Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 100.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5: 664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., and Williams, C. S. 1985. Interference and control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33: 203–208.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1972. Effect of shade on giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 20: 588–592.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1977. Giant foxtail: the most serious annual grass weed in the Midwest. Weeds Today 9: 19–20.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10: 26–29.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13: 331–334.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17: 281–283.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. J., Bauman, T. T., White, M. D., and Vidal, R. A. 1994. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in corn (Zea mays). Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 137–138.Google Scholar
Langston, S. J. and Harvey, R. G. 1994. Using alachlor impregnated on dry fertilizer to create varying giant foxtail populations for corn competition studies. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 18.Google Scholar
Little, T. M. and Hill, F. J. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation: Design and Analysis. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 195–227.Google Scholar
Santelmann, P. W., Meade, J. A., and Peters, R. A. 1963. Growth and development of yellow foxtail and giant foxtail. Weeds 11: 139–142.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, pp. 675–712.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1965. Effect of date of planting and stage of cutting on seed production of giant foxtail. Weeds 13: 60–62.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994a. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42: 103–109.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Stern, J., Renner, K. A., and Kells, J. J. 1994b. Estimating weed-crop interference parameters for weed management models. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Research Report 538. 20 p.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1982. Influence of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) density and duration of interference on soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30: 614–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar