Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:37:34.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth interactions in communities of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), and corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Moechnig ,
Chris M. Boerboom ,
David E. Stoltenberg  and
Larry K. Binning
Chris M. Boerboom
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Larry K. Binning
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative competitive ability of common lambsquarters and giant foxtail in mixed weed–corn communities was characterized in 1998 and 1999 using empirical models that described late-season weed biomass on the basis of weed density, early-season relative leaf area, or early-season relative shoot volume. Competition coefficients estimated from weed density were inconsistent between years because they indicated that giant foxtail was more competitive than common lambsquarters in 1998 but that common lambsquarters was more competitive than giant foxtail in 1999. In contrast, the competition coefficients based on relative leaf area and relative volume were consistent between years. Competition coefficients estimated from relative leaf area indicated that giant foxtail was more competitive than common lambsquarters in each year. Competition coefficients estimated from weed relative volume indicated that the relative competitive ability of each weed species was similar in each year. Weed relative competitive abilities were characterized further by describing the mechanisms of competition related to shoot height and width growth. Giant foxtail was taller than common lambsquarters shortly after emergence each year, but plasticity of common lambsquarters growth resulted in reduced height differential between the weed species over time. Even so, giant foxtail was taller than common lambsquarters at physiological maturity each year. Coefficients that described the ability of each weed species to crowd neighbors indicated that giant foxtail shoot width was affected more by increased common lambsquarters density and proportion than was common lambsquarters shoot width by giant foxtail. The greater ability of common lambsquarters to crowd neighbors relative to giant foxtail was attributed to the greater leaf area density (LAD) of common lambsquarters compared with that of giant foxtail. Although characterization of shoot height, width, LAD, and biomass elucidated in part the mechanisms of competition between these species, models that accounted for differences in early-season relative plant size were consistent between years, indicating that giant foxtail was equally or more competitive than common lambsquarters in corn.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb DK493SR’Logistic functionrelative leaf arearelative volumeweed growthweed interactions
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 363 - 370
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

Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reductions from weeds. Weed Technol. 1:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailaré, C. L. 1999. Keeping up with the neighbours: phytochrome sensing and other signaling mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 4:97–102.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Anderson, G. W., and Dekker, J. 1987. Interference of Sinapis arvensis L. and Chenopodium album L. in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Weed Res. 27:207–213.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.Google Scholar
Bussler, B. H., Maxwell, B. D., and Puettmann, K. 1995. Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci. 43:586–594.Google Scholar
Caton, B. P., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 1999. A plant growth model for integrated weed management in direct-seeded rice. III. Interspecific competition for light. Field Crops Res. 63:47–61.Google Scholar
Colquhoun, J., Stoltenberg, D. E., Binning, L. K., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Phenology of Chenopodium album growth parameters. Weed Sci. 49:177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, S. P., Binning, L. K., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2002. Estimating giant foxtail cohort productivity in soybean based on weed density, leaf area, or volume. Weed Sci. 50:72–78.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. 1997. Substitutive experiments and the evidence for competitive hierarchies in plant communities. Oikos. 80:179–182.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. and Wayne, P. 1996. Asymmetric competition between plant species. Oecologia. 108:311–320.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. D. 1992. Weed competition and interference in cropping systems. Pages 113–117 In Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress. Melbourne, Australia: Weed Science Society of Victoria.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 33–76.Google Scholar
Ervio, L. 1971. The effect of intra-specific competition on the development of Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 11:124–134.Google 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.Google Scholar
France, J. and Thornley, J.H.T. 1984. Mathematical Models in Agriculture. London: Butterworths. pp. 80–82.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1998. Predicting the determinants of weed abundance: a model for the population dynamics of Chenopodium album in sugar beet. J. Appl. Ecol. 35:904–920.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Holt, J. S. 1995. Using phenology prediction in weed management: a review. Weed Res. 35:461–470.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, J. D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 87:1–16.Google Scholar
Graf, B., Gutierrez, A. P., Rakotobe, O., Zahner, P., and Delucchi, V. 1990. A simulation model for the dynamics of rice growth and development: part II—the competition with weeds for nitrogen and light. Agric. Syst. 32:367–392.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Webb, J. E. 2001. Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn. Weed Sci. 49:224–229.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., Anderson, R. L., et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum-Aegilops cylindrical interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:529–537.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
Knezevic, S. Z. and Horak, M. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 46:665–672.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Threshold of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Comparison of empirical models depicting density of Amaranthus retroflexus L. and relative leaf area as predictors of yield loss in maize (Zea mays L.). Weed Res. 35:207–214.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Mechanisms of competition for light. Pages 33–60 In Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, Great Britain: CAB International.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1993. Eco-physiological characterization of the species. Pages 83–104 In Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, Great Britain: CAB International.Google Scholar
Law, R. and Watkinson, A. R. 1987. Response-surface analysis of two-species competition: an experiment on Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata . J. Ecol. 75:871–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Westra, P., et al. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:195–200.Google Scholar
Lins, R. D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Relationship of seed production to biomass for four weed species. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:42–43.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Christensen, S., Cloutier, D., et al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 36:93–101.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J., Risiott, R., and Ostermann, H. P. 1996. Investigations into alternative methods to predict the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields. Weed Sci. 44:290–297.Google Scholar
Mashingaidze, A. B. 1990. Comparison of Leaf Area Expansion Rates in Four Crops and Seven Weeds under Two Temperature Regimes. . Iowa Sate University, Ames, IA. pp. 32–34.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202–208.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1981. Non-photosynthetic responses to light quality. Pages 109–134 In Lange, D. L., Nobel, P. S., Osmond, C. B., and Ziegler, H., eds. Physiological Plant Ecology I; Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. Volume 12A. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium album demography. Weed Sci. 46:65–70.Google Scholar
Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta-alba or var. robusta-purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665–674.Google Scholar
Pantone, D. J. and Baker, J. B. 1991. Weed-crop competition models and response-surface analysis of red rice competition in cultivated rice: a review. Crop Sci. 31:1105–1110.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 163–216.Google Scholar
Seibert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci. 41:52–56.Google Scholar
Street, J. E., Snipes, C. E., McGuire, J. A., and Buchanan, G. A. 1985. Competition of a binary weed system with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:807–809.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. F., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42:103–109.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2001. Effect of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth. Weed Technol. 15:413–418.Google Scholar
Tremmel, D. C. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1993. How neighbor canopy architecture affects target plant performance. Ecology. 74:2114–2124.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Lutman, P. J., and Froud-Williams, R. J. 1997. Predicting yield loss due to interference from two weed species using early observations of relative weed leaf area. Weed Res. 37:287–299.Google Scholar
Wiederholt, R. J. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996. Absence of differential fitness between giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) accessions resistant and susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme a carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 44:18–24.Google Scholar