Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T17:33:52.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Aca C. Bosnic  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Aca C. Bosnic
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barnyardgrass is a serious weed problem in cornfields in Ontario. Field experiments were conducted at two locations in 1994 and 1995 to determine the influence of emergence time and barnyardgrass density on corn yield loss, leaf area at 50% silking, and barnyardgrass seed production. Selected barnyardgrass densities up to 200 plants m−1 were established within 12.5 cm on either side of the corn row. Barnyardgrass seeds were planted concurrently with corn and at the 3- to 5- or 1- to 2-leaf stage of corn growth in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Barnyardgrass density and seedling emergence relative to corn influenced the magnitude of corn yield loss. Maximum corn grain yield loss ranged from 26 to 35% for early emerging barnyardgrass, and less than 6% yield loss occurred from barnyardgrass seedlings emerging later than the 4-leaf stage of corn growth. Changes in corn leaf area index at 50% silking reflected the level of barnyardgrass competition in corn. Maximum leaf area reduction ranged from 21 to 23%. Barnyardgrass seed production varied with time of seedling emergence and density. Ten barnyardgrass plants emerging up to the 3-leaf stage of corn growth produced 14,400 to 34,600 seeds m−2 compared to only 1,200 to 2,800 seeds m−2 from plants emerging after the 4-leaf corn stage. The results of this study are essential in the development of an integrated weed management strategy for corn.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3902’Integrated weed managementinterferencetime of emergenceweed densityweed seed yieldyield lossECHCG
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 276 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Alex, J. F. 1964. Weeds of tomato and corn fields in two regions of Ontario. Weed Res. 4: 308–318.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Field crop recommendations 1995–1996. Publication 296. Toronto. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, pp. 23–31.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. Agriculture Statistics for Ontario. Publication 20. Toronto. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 66 p.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. C. H. and Wilson, B. F. 1981. Colonizing ability in the Echinocbloa crus-galli complex (barnyardgrass). I. Variation in life history. Can. J. Bot. 59: 1844–1860.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Effects of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) on growth, yield, and nutrient status of transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 36: 775–779.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D. and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Evaluation of three empirical models depicting Ambrosia artemisiifolia competition in white bean. Weed Res. 35: 421–428.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, 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 regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6: 898–903.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105: 513–521.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35: 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 44: 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 43: 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied regression analysis. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 458–517.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.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Thomas, A. G. 1985. Survey for weeds and their competitive effect in corn and soybean fields of Essex and Kent counties in Ontario. Weed survey series Publication 85–2. Regina, Canada: Agriculture Canada, 6 p.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds—Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Honěk, A. and Martinková, Z. 1991. Competition between maize and barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-galli and its effect on aphids and their predators. Acta Oecol. 12: 741–751.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1991. Growth and interaction of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39: 369–375.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
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: 207–215.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometric Methods. London: MacMillan Press Limited, pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31: 97–105.Google Scholar
Maun, M. A. and Barrett, S.C.H. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66: 739–759.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 6: 220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Spitters, C.J.T., Kropff, M. J., and de Groot, W. 1989. Competition between maize and Echinochloa crus-galli analysed by a hyperbolic regression model. Ann. Appl. Biol. 115: 541–551.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, G. and Palaniappan, S. 1994. Effect of major weed species on growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa). Indian J. Agron. 39: 13–15.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the rale of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.Google 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., Aquilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86: 591–595.Google Scholar
Vail, G. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1993. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7: 220–225.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 38: 338–343.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5: 674–679.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. M. and Binning, L. K. 1987. Calculating the threshold temperature of development for weeds. Weed Sci. 35: 177–179.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Vandiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18: 518–519.Google Scholar