Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:37:09.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Systems to Aid Weed Management in Semiarid Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Randy L. Anderson
Randy L. Anderson*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 2923 Medary Avenue, Brookings, SD 57006. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Producers in the semiarid Great Plains are including corn (Zea mays) in dryland rotations; however, weed management is difficult because the corn canopy is not competitive with weeds. My objective was to determine if cultural practices can enhance corn's competitiveness with weeds, thus supplementing current weed management strategies. Cultural systems, comprised of different row spacing, plant population, and nitrogen placement, were evaluated for effects on foxtail millet (Setaria italica) growth during three growing seasons. A cultural system comprised of 38-cm row spacing, 47,000 plants/ha, and N banded near the seeds reduced foxtail millet biomass 60% compared with the conventional system of 76-cm row spacing, 37,000 plants/ha, and N broadcast. Narrow rows had the greatest effect on foxtail millet growth. Corn's tolerance to foxtail millet interference also was improved, as yield loss in the system with narrow rows, high population, and banded fertilizer was reduced threefold compared with the conventional system. Integrating cultural systems with rotation design and residue management will further strengthen weed management in semiarid corn production.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3893’foxtail millet, Setaria italica (L.) Beauv. ‘Golden German’Increased seeding ratenitrogen placementrow spacing
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 630 - 634
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. 1997. Cultural systems can reduce reproductive potential of winter annual grasses. Weed Technol. 11: 608–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 1998. Designing rotations for a semiarid region. In Proceedings, 10th Annual Meeting, Colorado Conservation Tillage Association, Akron, CO. pp. 4–15.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 1999. Cultural strategies reduce weed densities in summer annual crops. Weed Technol. 13: 314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. J. 1996. Whole-plant physiological and yield responses of maize to plant density. Agron. J. 88: 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43: 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flenet, F., Kiniry, J. R., Board, J. E., Westgate, M. E., and Reicosky, D. C. 1996. Row spacing effects on light extinction coefficients of corn, sorghum, soybean, and sunflower. Agron. J. 88: 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7: 161–167.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40: 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Wiese, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. J., van Lenteren, J. C., Phatak, S. C., and Tumlinson, J. H. 1997. A total system approach to sustainable pest management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 12243–12248.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J., Miller, S. D., and Wicks, G. A. 1996. The future of herbicides in weed control systems of the Great Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 209–215.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Wiese, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissanka, S. P., Dixon, M. A., and Tollenaar, M. 1997. Canopy gas exchange response to moisture stress in old and new maize hybrid. Crop Sci. 37: 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, G. A., Schegel, A. J., Tanaka, D. L., and Jones, O. R. 1996. Precipitation use efficiency as affected by cropping and tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 180–186.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. A., Westfall, D. G., Peairs, F. B., et al. 1999. Sustainable dryland agroecosystem management. Colorado State University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bull. TB99-1. 86 p.Google Scholar
Porter, P. M., Hicks, D. R., Lueschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Warnes, D. D., and Hoverstad, T. R. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern Corn Belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 293–300.Google Scholar
Staggenborg, S. A., Fjell, D. J., Devlin, D. L., Gordon, W. B., Maddux, L. D., and Marsh, B. H. 1999. Selecting optimum planting dates and plant populations for dryland corn in Kansas. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 85–90.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn on weed control and light transmission. Weed Technol. 9: 113–118.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1989. Genetic improvement in grain yield of commercial maize hybrids grown in Ontario from 1959 to 1988. Crop Sci. 29: 1365–1371.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Wiese, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86: 591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar