Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T11:48:27.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on Corn (Zea mays) Grain Yield and Yield and Quality of Forage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rafael A. Massinga  and
Randall S. Currie
Rafael A. Massinga
Affiliation:
Southwest Research-Extension Center, Kansas State University, Garden City, KS 67846
Randall S. Currie*
Affiliation:
Southwest Research-Extension Center, Kansas State University, Garden City, KS 67846
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rcurrie@oz.oznet.ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted at one location in 1997 (W97) and in two locations in 1998 (E98 and W98) near Garden City, KS, to evaluate the impact of Palmer amaranth at densities of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 plants/m of row on forage yield and quality of irrigated corn and to determine if harvesting Palmer amaranth–infested corn for forage rather than for grain would reduce losses. Weed-free corn, Palmer amaranth alone, and corn–Palmer amaranth harvested together were evaluated for forage yield and quality. Forage quality was determined by evaluating in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and crude protein (CP). Corn grain and forage yield declined with increasing Palmer amaranth density. However, decline in forage yield ranged from 1 to 44% of the weed-free yield at Palmer amaranth densities of 0.5 and 8 plants/m of row, whereas decline in grain yield ranged from 11 to 74% of the weed-free yield at the same densities. Digestibility of weed-free corn forage, expressed as IVDMD, was significantly higher than that of Palmer amaranth alone at W97 and W98. The CP of weed-free corn forage was similar to that of Palmer amaranth forage at W98, but it was lower at the other two locations. In contrast, CP did not differ between corn–Palmer amaranth harvested together and weed-free corn. The IVDMD of weed-free corn forage was greater than that of corn–Palmer amaranth mixture at W98, but no differences were observed at the other two locations. The relative feeding values of weed-free corn and corn–Palmer amaranth mixture were similar, and greater than that of Palmer amaranth in monoculture. These results indicate that Palmer amaranth interference in corn may not affect forage quality but can cause a decline in yield. This decline in yield is less when harvesting corn and Palmer amaranth together for forage rather than for harvesting corn grain alone.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. #3 AMAPAcorn, Zea mays L.Forage qualityweed densityyield lossADF, acid detergent fiberCP, crude proteinDM, dry matterIVDMD, in vitro dry matter digestibilityNDF, neutral detergent fiberRFV, relative feed value
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 532 - 536
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

Anonymous. 1997. Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Geographic Area Series. Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Agriculture Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 436 p.Google Scholar
Ball, D. M., Hoveland, C. S., and Lacefield, G. D. 1991. Southern Forages. Atlanta, GA: Potash and Phosphate Institute (PPI) and the Foundation for Agronomic Research (FRA). pp. 124–135.Google Scholar
Becker, R. E., Wheeler, E. L., Lorentz, K., Stafford, A. E., Grosjean, O. K., Betschart, A. A., and Saunders, R. M. 1981. A compositional study of amaranth grain. J. Food Sci. 46: 1175–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressani, R. 1989. The proteins of grain amaranth. Food Rev. Int. 5: 13–17.Google Scholar
Caddel, J. and Allen, E. 1997. Forage Quality Interpretations. Oklahoma State University Extension Facts. F-2117. Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Cheeke, P. R. and Bronson, J. 1980. Feeding trials with amaranthus grain, forage and leaf protein concentrates. In Proceedings of the Second Amaranth Conference. Emmaus, PA: Rodale. pp. 5–11.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–52.Google Scholar
Currie, R., Kreikemeier, K., and Massinga, R. 1998. Impact of Palmer Pigweed on Quality and Yield of Whole-Plant Corn. Field Day. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Rep. of Progress 814. Garden City, KS: Southwest Research-Extension Center, Kansas State University. pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
Dumler, T. J., Thompson, C. R., O'Brien, D. M., and Stockton, R. 2001. Center-Pivot-Irrigated Corn Cost-Return Budget. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service Farm Management Guide MF-585. Kansas: Kansas State University.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications). Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Handbook 379. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. L. 2000. Growth analysis of four amaranth species. Weed Sci. 48: 347–355.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 192–195.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to the Common Pigweed of the Great Plains. Publication S-80. Manhattan, KS: Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. 12 p.Google Scholar
Lehmann, J. W. 1989. Proteins of grain amaranths. Legacy 2: 3–7.Google Scholar
Marten, G. C., Sheaffer, C. C., and Wyse, D. L. 1987. Forage nutritive value and palatability of perennial weeds. Agron. J. 79: 980–986.Google Scholar
McGregor, R. L. 1986. Amaranthaceae, the pigweed family. In Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. P., Lewis, W. M., Green, J. T., and Burns, J. C. 1993. Yield and quality of silage corn as altered by johnsongrass infestation. Agron. J. 85: 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, R. M. and Becker, R. 1984. Amaranthus: a potential food and feed resource. Adv. Cereal Sci. Technol. 6: 357–396.Google Scholar
Schnetzler, K. A. and Breene, W. M. 1994. Food uses and amaranth product research: a comprehensive review. In Paredes-Lopez, O., ed. Amaranth Biology, Chemistry, and Technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 155–184.Google Scholar
Singhal, R. S. and Kulkarni, P. R. 1988. Review: amaranths—an underutilized resource. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 23: 129–139.Google Scholar
Srikantia, S. G. 1978. Prevention of vitamin A deficiency. World Rev. Nutr. Diet. 31: 95–99.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1985. Composition, fiber quality and nutritive value of forages. In Heat, M. M., Barnes, R. F., and Metcalf, D. S., eds. Forage the Science of Grassland Agriculture. Iowa: The Iowa State Press. pp. 412–421.Google Scholar