Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:45:33.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principal Canopy Factors of Sweet Corn and Relationships to Competitive Ability with Wild-Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Yim F. So ,
Martin M. Williams II ,
Jerald K. Pataky  and
Adam S. Davis
Yim F. So
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Jerald K. Pataky
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Univariate analyses fail to account for covariance among phenomorphological traits implicated in crop competitive ability. A more complete analysis of cultivar–weed interactions would reduce a number of important traits to a few underlying principal factors responsible for sweet corn competitiveness. Twenty-three commercial sweet corn hybrids from nine seed companies were grown in the presence and absence of wild-proso millet to (1) quantify the extent to which phenomorphological traits vary in sweet corn, (2) identify underlying principal factors that describe variation in crop canopy development, and (3) determine functional relationships between crop canopy factors and competitive ability. A principal component factor analysis revealed that 7 of the 18 weed-free crop traits measured at silking loaded highly (0.65 to 0.90) into the first factor, including plant height, shoot biomass, per plant leaf area, leaf area index, and intercepted light, as well as thermal time from emergence to silking and emergence to maturity. All seven traits were highly correlated (0.38 to 0.93) and were interpreted as a “late canopy and maturity” factor. Another five traits formed two additional principal factors that were interpreted as an early “seedling quality” factor (e.g., kernel mass, seedling vigor, and height at two-leaf stage) and a mid-season “canopy closure” factor (e.g., leaf area index and intercepted photosynthetically active radiation at six-leaf stage). Relationships between principal factors and competitive abilities were quantified using least-squares linear regression. Cultivars with greater loadings in the late canopy and maturity and canopy closure factors were more competitive with wild-proso millet. In contrast, crop competitive ability declined with cultivars that loaded highly into the seedling quality factor. The analyses showed that sweet corn's ability to endure weed interference and suppress weed fitness relates uniquely to three underlying principal factors that capture crop canopy development around emergence and near canopy closure and during the reproductive phase.

Keywords

Wild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.sweet corn, Zea mays L. ‘ACX1413BC’, ‘Beyond’, ‘Cahill’, ‘Code128’, ‘Code3’, ‘Code39’, ‘Coho’, ‘DMC2184’, ‘Dynamo’, ‘El Toro’, ‘EX 8716622’, ‘Harvest Gold’, ‘Incredible’, ‘Legacy’, ‘Luscious’, ‘Mystic’, ‘Precious Gem’, ‘Quickie’, ‘Rocker’, ‘SCH7006RR’, ‘Spirit’, ‘Spring Treat’, and ‘Sugar Buns’.Competitioncrop tolerancecultural weed controlfactor analysisinterferenceintegrated weed managementphenologyweed suppressive ability
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 296 - 303
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

Anderson, R. L. 2000. Ecology and interference of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in semi-arid corn. Weed Technol. 14:45–50.Google Scholar
Azanza, F., Zur, A. B., and Juvik, J. 1996. Variation in sweet corn characteristics associated with stand establishment and eating quality. Euphytica. 87:7–18.Google Scholar
Begna, S. H., Hamilton, R. I., Dwyer, L. M., Stewart, D. W., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., Foroutan-Pour, K., and Smith, D. L. 2001a. Weed biomass production response to plant spacing and corn (Zea mays) hybrids differing in canopy architecture. Weed Technol. 15:647–653.Google Scholar
Begna, S. H., Smith, D. L., Hamilton, R. I., Dwyer, L. M., and Stewart, D. W. 2001b. Corn genotypic variation effects on seedling emergence and leaf appearance of short-season areas. J. Agro. Crop Sci. 186:267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. C. and Shaw, D. R. 2000. Effect of Glycine max cultivar and weed control on weed seed characteristics. Weed Sci. 48:431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, B. M. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. Alt. Agric. 7:169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, G. T. and Pleasant, J. M. 1994. Competitive ability of six corn (Zea mays) hybrids with four weed control practices. Weed Technol. 8:124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, D. P., Gulden, R., and Clay, S. A. 2006. Microarray analysis of late-season velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) effect on corn. Weed Sci. 54:983–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, D. P., Llewellyn, D., and Clay, S. A. 2007. Heterologous hybridization of cotton microarrays with velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) reveals physiological response due to corn competition. Weed Sci. 55:546–557.Google Scholar
Jannink, J. L., Jordan, N. R., and Orf, J. H. 2001. Feasibility of section for high weed suppressive ability in soybean: absence of tradeoffs between rapid initial growth and sustained later growth. Euphytica. 120:291–300.Google Scholar
Jannink, J. L., Orf, J. H., Jordan, N. R., and Shaw, R. G. 2000. Index selection for weed suppressive ability in soybean. Crop Sci. 40:1087–1094.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 1998. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysts. Pacific Grove, CA Brooks/Cole. 191–212.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Smith, A., Verbeek, B., Koetz, E., Lockley, P., and Martin, P. 2006. Incremental crop tolerance to weeds: a measure for selecting competitive ability in Australian wheats. Euphytica. 149:85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 46:569–574.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, B. E. 1998. Mechanisms of corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J. 90:787–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makus, D. J. 2000. Performance of two sweet corn cultivars grown under conservation tillage and with-in-row weed pressure. Subtropical Plant Sci. 52:18–22.Google Scholar
Nordby, J. N., Williams, M. M. II, Pataky, J. K., and Riechers, D. E. 2008. A common genetic basis in sweet corn inbred Cr1 for cross sensitivity to multiple cytochrome P450-metabolized herbicides. Weed Science. 56:376–382.Google Scholar
Ott, R. L. and Longnecker, M. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA Duxbury. 368–371.Google Scholar
Pataky, J. K., Nordby, J. N., Williams, M. M. II, and Riechers, D. E. 2006. Inheritance of cross-sensitivity in sweet corn to herbicides applied postemergence. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 131:744–751.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., Benson, G. O., and Herman, J. C. 1993. How a Corn Plant Develops. http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/maize/www.ag.iastate.edu/departments/agronomy/corngrows.html. Accessed: December 16, 2008.Google Scholar
Roggenkamp, G. J., Mason, S. C., and Martin, A. R. 2000. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) response to corn (Zea mays) hybrid. Weed Technol. 14:304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankula, S., VanGessel, M. J., and Mulford, R. R. 2004. Corn leaf architecture as a tool for weed management in two production systems. Weed Sci. 52:1026–1033.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2002. User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Shenk, M. D., Braunworth, W. S. Jr., Fernandez, R. J., Curtis, D. W., McGrath, D., and William, R. D. 1990. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:440–445.Google Scholar
So, Y. F., Williams, M. M. II, and Pataky, J. K. 2009. Weed interference differentially affects canopy architecture and yield components of 25 sweet corn hybrids. HortScience. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Gulden, R. H., and Chandler, K. 2007. A rationale for atrazine stewardship in corn. Weed Sci. 55:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toler, J. E., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. S., and Wallace, S. U. 1999. Corn leaf orientation effects on light interception, intraspecific competition, and grain yields. J. Prod. Agric. 12:369–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Aguilera, A., and Nissanka, S. P. 1997. Grain yield is reduced more by weed interference in an old than in a new maize hybrid. Agron. J. 89:239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, W. F. 2001. Sweet corn. Pages 155–197. In Hallauer, A. R. Specialty Corns. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:377–382.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2006. Canopy variation among three sweet corn hybrids and implications for light competition. HortScience. 41:1449–1454.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2007. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) suppressive ability among three sweet corn hybrids. Weed Sci. 55:245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2008a. Crop competitive ability contributes to herbicide performance in sweet corn. Weed Res. 48:58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boydston, R. A., and Davis, A. S. 2008b. Differential tolerance in sweet corn to wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference. Weed Sci. 56:91–96.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, R. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2008c. Residual weeds of sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol. 22:646–653.Google Scholar
Zhao, D. L., Atlin, G. N., Bastiaans, L., and Spiertz, J. H. J. 2006. Cultivar weed-competitiveness in aerobic rice: heritability, correlated traits, and the potential for indirect selection in weed-free environments. Crop Sci. 46:372–380.Google Scholar