Wild proso millet (Panicum millaceum) suppressive ability among three sweet corn hybrids

Weed Science

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 245-251

  Williams II, Martin M ^a   Boydston, Rick A ^b   Davis, Adam S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Competition; Fecundity; Integrated weed management; Weed density

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); FECUNDITY; FITNESS; HYBRID; INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT; LEAF AREA INDEX; MAIZE; MILLET; MONOCOTYLEDON; PHOTOSYNTHETICALLY ACTIVE RADIATION; WEED CONTROL; WILD POPULATION;

ILLINOIS; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

PANICUM; PANICUM MILIACEUM; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 34249893378     PISSN: 00431745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1614/WS-06-123.1     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agdag, M., L. Nelson, D. Baltensperger, D. Lyon, and S. Kachman. 2001. Row spacing affects grain yield and other agronomic characters of proso millet. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32:2021-2032.
2. Anonymous. 2003. Sweet Corn Pest Management Strategic Plan. http:// pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/NCSweetcorn.pdf.
3. Anonymous. 2006. Vegetables 2005 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp. 17-69.
4. Azanza, F., A. Bar-Zur, and J.A. Juvik. 1996. Variation in sweet corn kernel characteristics associated with stand establishment and eating quality. Euphytica 87:7-18.
5. Begna, S.H., R.I. Hamilton, L.M. Dwyer, D.W. Stewart, D. Cloutier, L. Assemat, K. Foroutan-pour, and D.L. Smith. 2001. Morphology and yield response to weed pressure by corn hybrids differing in canopy architecture. Eur. J. Agron. 14:293-302.
6. Bisikwa, J. 2001. Effects of canopy density on growth and development of wild proso millet and giant foxtail. M.S. thesis. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
7. Buhler, D.D., M. Liebman, and J.J. Obrycki. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an 1PM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274-280.
8. Callaway, M.B. 1992. Compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 7:169-180.
9. Christensen, S. 1994. Crop weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34:29-36.
10. Colosi, J.C. and B.A. Schaal. 1997. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) is genetically variable and distinct from crop varieties of proso millet. Weed Sci. 45:509-518.
11. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239-252.
12. Davis, A.S., K.A. Renner, and K.L. Gross. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296-306.
13. Forcella, F., D.H. Peterson, and J.C. Barbour. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:535-543.
14. Ford, G.T. and J.M. Pleasant. 1994. Competitive abilities of six corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids with four weed control practices. Weed Technol. 8:124-128.
15. Harvey, R.G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: wild-proso millet. Crops Soils Mag. 27:10-13.
16. Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Growth Analysis. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
17. Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis. London: Unwin Hyman.
18. Jannink, J.L., J.H. Orf, N.R. Jordan, and R.G. Shaw. 2000. Index selection for weed suppressive ability in soybean. Crop Sci. 40:1087-1094.
19. Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84-91.
20. Lemerle, D., B. Verbeek, and N.E. Coombes. 1996. Interaction between wheat (Triticum aestivum) and diclofop to reduce the cost of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) control. Weed Sci. 44:634-639.
21. Liebman, M. and E. Gallandt. 1997. Many little hammers: Ecological approaches for management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291-343 in L.E. Jackson, ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic.
22. Lindquist, J.L. and D.A. Mortensen. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 46:569-574.
23. Lindquist, J.L., D.A. Mortensen, S.A. Clay, R. Schmenk, J.J. Kells, K. Howatt, and P. Westra. 1996. Stability of com (Zea mays) - velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309-313.
24. Lindquist, J.L., D.A. Mortensen, and B.E. Johnson. 1998. Mechanisms of corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J. 90:787-792.
25. Makus, D.J. 2000. Performance of two sweet com cultivars grown under conservation tillage and with-in-row weed pressure. Subtrop. Plant Sci. 52:18-22.
26. Menalled, F.D., K.L. Gross, and M. Hammond. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586-1601.
27. Mortensen, D.A., L. Bastiaans, and M. Sattin. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40:49-62.
28. Neter, J., M.H. Kutner, C.J. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago: Irwin. 1408 p.
29. Pataky, J.K. 1992. Relationships between yield of sweet com and northern leaf blight caused by Exserohilum turcicum. Phytopathology 82:370-375.
30. Pester, T.A., O.C. Burnside, and J.H. Orf. 1999. Increasing crop competitiveness to weeds through crop breeding. Pages 59-76 in D.D. Buhler, ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products.
31. Ratkowsky, D.A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 135-153.
32. Regnier, E.E. and R.R. Janke. 1990. Evolving strategies for managing weeds. Pages 174-202 in C.A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R.H. Miller, and G. House, eds. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
33. Roggenkamp, G.J., S.C. Mason, and A.R. Martin. 2000. Vdvetleaf and green foxtail response to corn hybrid. Weed Technol. 14:304-311.
34. Russelle, M.P., W.W. Wilhelm, R.A. Olson, and J.F. Power. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24:28-32.
35. Sankula, S., M.J. VanGessel, and R.R. Mulford. 2004. Corn leaf architecture as a tool for weed management in two corn production systems. Weed Sci. 52:1026-1033.
36. Strand, O.E. and R. Behrens. 1981. Identification of Wild Proso Millet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Agronomy Fact Sheet No. 35.2 p.
37. Swinton, S.M., D.D. Buhler, F. Forcella, J.L. Gunsolus, and R.P. King. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42:103-109.
38. SYSTAT. 2004. SYSTAT 11.0. Richmond, CA: SYSTAT.
39. Tracy, W.F. 2001. Sweet com. Pages 155-197 in A.R. Hallauer, ed. Specialty Corns. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
40. Williams, B.J. and R.G. Harvey. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet com (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:377-382.
41. Williams, M.M., II. 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci. 54:928-933.
42. Williams, M.M., II., R.A. Boydston, and A.S. Davis. 2006a. Canopy variation among three sweet corn hybrids and implications for light competition. HortScience 41:1-6.
43. Williams, M.M., II. and J.B. Masiunas. 2006. Functional relationships between giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference and sweet corn vield and ear traits. Weed Sci. 54:948-953.
44. Williams, M.M., II., T.L. Rabaey, C.L. Boerboom, and A.S. Davis. 2006b. Survey of weeds and weed management in sweet corn grown for processing. Proc N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:83.