Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:17:12.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rafael A. Massinga ,
Randall S. Currie ,
Michael J. Horak  and
John Boyer Jr.
Rafael A. Massinga
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Michael J. Horak
Affiliation:
Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167
John Boyer Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) is a major weed in corn (Zea mays) fields in the southern Great Plains of the United States. Field studies were conducted in 1996, 1997, and 1998 near Garden City, KS, to evaluate the effects of Palmer amaranth density and time of emergence on grain yield of irrigated corn and on seed production of Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth was established at densities of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 plants m−1 of corn row both concurrently at corn planting and when corn was at the three- to six-leaf stage. The control plots were weed free. The Palmer amaranth planted with corn emerged with corn, whereas that planted later emerged at the four-, six-, and seven-leaf stages of corn. The Palmer amaranth emerging with corn reduced yield from 11 to 91% as density increased from 0.5 to 8 plants m−1 of row. In contrast, yield loss from Palmer amaranth emerging later than corn was observed only when the emergence occurred at the four- and six-leaf stages. The corn leaf area index (LAI) decreased as Palmer amaranth density increased. Reduction in corn LAI from Palmer amaranth interference was smaller for the second emergence date than for the first emergence date. Seed production per Palmer amaranth plant decreased with greater density, but seed per unit area increased from 140,000 to 514,000 seeds m−2 at densities of 0.5 and 8 plants m−1 of row, respectively, when Palmer amaranth emerged with corn and from 1,800 to 91,000 seeds m−2 at the same densities for later emergence dates. Although Palmer amaranth is highly competitive in corn, this study shows that yield loss is affected more by time of emergence than by density.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘DK 592SR’Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAEmergence datesintegrated weed managementweed densityyield lossAMAPA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 202 - 208
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

Adcock, T. E. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Effects of preemergence herbicides on the competitiveness of selected weeds. Weed Sci. 39:54–56.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic threshold in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 43:81–87.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Wiese, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regression for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6:898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.Google Scholar
Currie, R., Kreikemeier, K., and Massinga, R. 1998. Impact of Palmer Pigweed on Quality and Yield of Whole-Plant Corn. Manhattan, KS: Kansas Agricultural Experimental Station, Kansas State University Southwest Research—Extension Center Field Day Report of Progress 814. pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. S. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, T. L., Baldwin, F. L., and Becton, C. M. 1989. Palmer amaranth control in sandy soil in northeast Arkansas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:113.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C., Kells, J. J., Swinton, S. M., and Renner, K. A. 1997. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn. Weed Sci. 45:256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosset, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:587–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Corvalis, OR: Weed Science Society of America/Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (WSSA/HRAC) Weed Smart annual report. 3 pp.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. 1997. The changing nature of Palmer amaranth: a case study. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:161.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to Common Pigweeds in the Great Plains. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University S-80 Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 1, 9.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. M. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and competition of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:326–334.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative of time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
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
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1977. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition to Econometric Methods. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan. pp. 81–91.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 theoprhasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1987. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and other plant residues in soil. Weed Sci. 35:339–347.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1988. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on seedling growth. Weed Sci. 36:325–328.Google Scholar
Monks, D. M. and Oliver, R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Baumann, P. A., and Chandler, J. M. 1997. The effect of Palmer amaranth competition on cotton growth and yield. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:149–150.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T. and Blackshaw, R. E. 1997. Effect of volunteer barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) interference on field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Weed Sci. 45:249–255.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems. 1290 p.Google Scholar
Sprague, L. C., Stroller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:192–197.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Combellack, J. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of threshold for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Daynard, T. B., and Hunter, R. B. 1979. Effect of temperature on rate of leaf appearance and flowering date in maize. Crop Sci. 19:363–366.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated pest management. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86:591–594.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1986. Factors affecting threshold levels and seed production of jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 26:215–223.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., Skinner, D. Z., and Kulakow, P. A. 1999. Transfer of herbicide resistance traits from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis . Weed Sci. 47:538–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar