Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn

Weed Science ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 928-933 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Planting Date ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Weed Interference

The critical period for weed control (CPWC) identifies the phase of the crop growth cycle when weed interference results in unacceptable yield losses; however, the effect of planting date on CPWC is not well understood. Field studies were conducted in 2004 and 2005 at Urbana, IL, to determine CPWC in sweet corn for early May (EARLY) and late-June (LATE) planting dates. A quantitative series of treatments of both increasing duration of interference and length of weed-free period were imposed within each planting-date main plot. The beginning and end of the CPWC, based on 5% loss of marketable ear mass, was determined by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to the relative yield data representing increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free periods, respectively. Weed interference stressed the crop more quickly and to a greater extent in EARLY, relative to LATE. At a 5% yield-loss level, duration of weed interference for 160 and 662 growing-degree days (GDD) from crop emergence marked the beginning of the CPWC for EARLY and LATE, respectively. When maintained weed-free for 320 and 134 GDD, weeds emerging later caused yield losses of less than 5% for EARLY and LATE, respectively. Weed densities exceeded 85 plants m−2for the duration of the experiments and predominant species included barnyardgrass, common lambsquarters, common purslane, redroot pigweed, and velvetleaf. Weed canopy height and total aboveground weed biomass were 300% and 500% higher, respectively, for EARLY compared with LATE. Interactions between planting date and CPWC indicate the need to consider planting date in the optimization of integrated weed management systems for sweet corn. In this study, weed management in mid-June–planted sweet corn could have been less intensive than early May–planted corn, reducing herbicide use and risk of herbicide carryover to sensitive rotation crops.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control (CPWC) in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan ISIK ◽  
Adem AKCA ◽  
Emine KAYA ALTOP ◽  
Nihat TURSUN ◽  
Husrev MENNAN
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Weed Interference

Accurate assessment of crop-weed control period is an essential part for planning an effective weed management for cropping systems. Field experiments were conducted during the seasonal growing periods of potato in 2012 and 2013 in Kayseri, Turkey to assess critical period for weed control (CPWC) in potato. A four parameter log-logistic model was used to assist in monitoring and analysing two sets of related, relative crop yield. Data was obtained during the periods of increased weed interference and as a comparison, during weed-free periods. In both years, the relative yield of potato decreased with a longer period of weed-interference whereas increased with increasing length of weed free period. In 2012, the CPWC ranged from 112 to 1014 GDD (Growing Degree Days) which corresponded to 8 to 66 days after crop emergence (DAE) and between 135-958 GDD (10 to 63 DAE) in the following year based on a 5% acceptable yield loss. Weed-free conditions needed to be established as early as the first week after crop emergence and maintained as late as ten weeks after crop emergence to avoid more than 5% yield loss in the potato. The results suggest that CPWC could well assist potato producers to significantly reduce the expense of their weed management programs as well as improving its efficacy.

The Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn in Turkey

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan Isik ◽  
Husrev Mennan ◽  
Bekir Bukun ◽  
Ahmet Oz ◽  
Mathieu Ngouajio
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Black Sea Region ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Loss Level

Field studies were conducted in 2001 and 2002 in the Black Sea Region of northern Turkey to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in corn and the effects of weed interference on corn height. Treatments of increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period were imposed at weekly intervals from 0 to 12 wk after crop emergence (WAE). The CPWC was determined with the use of 2.5, 5, and 10% acceptable yield loss levels by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data. With 5% yield loss level, the CPWC was 5 wk, starting at 0.2 WAE and ending at 5.2 WAE, which corresponded to the one- to five-leaf stage of corn. The CPWC increased to 8.9 wk, starting at 0 WAE and ending at 8.9 WAE, at the 2.5% yield loss level. At 10% yield loss level, the CPWC decreased to 1.7 wk, starting at 2.1 WAE and ending at 3.8 WAE.

scholarly journals Critical Period of Weed Control in Aerobic Rice

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Anwar ◽  
A. S. Juraimi ◽  
B. Samedani ◽  
A. Puteh ◽  
A. Man
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Aerobic Rice ◽  
View Point ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Economic View

Critical period of weed control is the foundation of integrated weed management and, hence, can be considered the first step to design weed control strategy. To determine critical period of weed control of aerobic rice, field trials were conducted during 2010/2011 at Universiti Putra Malaysia. A quantitative series of treatments comprising two components, (a) increasing duration of weed interference and (b) increasing length of weed-free period, were imposed. Critical period was determined through Logistic and Gompertz equations. Critical period varied between seasons; in main season, it started earlier and lasted longer, as compared to off-season. The onset of the critical period was found relatively stable between seasons, while the end was more variable. Critical period was determined as 7–49 days after seeding in off-season and 7–53 days in main season to achieve 95% of weed-free yield, and 23–40 days in off-season and 21–43 days in main season to achieve 90% of weed-free yield. Since 5% yield loss level is not practical from economic view point, a 10% yield loss may be considered excellent from economic view point. Therefore, aerobic rice should be kept weed-free during 21–43 days for better yield and higher economic return.

scholarly journals Critical Period for Weed Control in Leek (Allium porrum L.)

HortScience ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nihat Tursun ◽  
Bekir Bükün ◽  
Sinan Can Karacan ◽  
Mathieu Ngouajio ◽  
Hüsrev Mennan
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Allium Porrum ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Fresh Biomass ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Weed Infestation ◽  
Loss Level

Field studies were conducted in Mersin, Turkey, in 2002 and 2003 to determine the critical period for weed control in leek and to investigate the effects of weed interference on weed biomass. The critical period for weed control in leek based on a 5% acceptable yield loss level was calculated by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data. Total fresh biomass of weeds increased as the duration of weed infestation increased. The beginning of the critical period for weed control was 7 days after transplanting in 2002 and 13 days after transplanting in 2003. The end of the critical period for weed control was 85 days after transplanting in 2002 and 60 days after transplanting in 2003. Results of this study suggest that leek should be kept weed free between 7 days after transplanting and 85 days after transplanting to avoid yield losses in excess of 5%.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control: Revisiting Data Analysis

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (SP1) ◽  
pp. 188-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Avishek Datta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
The United States ◽  
Growth Cycle ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Yield Losses

There is an ever-larger need for designing an integrated weed management (IWM) program largely because of the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, not only in the United States but also worldwide. An IWM program involves a combination of various methods (cultural, mechanical, biological, genetic, and chemical) for effective and economical weed control (Swanton and Weise 1991). One of the first steps in designing an IWM program is to identify thecritical period for weed control(CPWC), defined as a period in the crop growth cycle during which weeds must be controlled to prevent crop yield losses (Zimdahl 1988).

scholarly journals Response of Barley Genotypes to Weed Interference in Australia

Agronomy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulshan Mahajan ◽  
Lee Hickey ◽  
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
Negative Correlation ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Barley Genotypes

Weed-competitive genotypes could be an important tool in integrated weed management (IWM) practices. However, weed competitiveness is often not considered a priority for breeding high-yielding cultivars. Weed-competitive ability is often evaluated based on weed-suppressive ability (WSA) and weed-tolerance ability (WTA) parameters; however, there is little information on these aspects for barley genotypes in Australia. In this study, the effects of weed interference on eight barley genotypes were assessed. Two years of field experiments were performed in a split-plot design with three replications. Yield loss due to weed interference ranged from 43% to 78%. The weed yield amongst genotypes varied from 0.5 to 1.7 Mg ha−1. Relative yield loss due to weed interference was negatively correlated with WTA and WSA. A negative correlation was also found between WSA and weed seed production (r = −0.72). Similarly, a negative correlation was found between WTA and barley yield in the weedy environment (r = −0.91). The results suggest that a high tillering ability and plant height are desirable attributes for weed competitiveness in the barley genotypes. These results also demonstrated that among the eight barley genotypes, Commander exhibited superior WSA and WTA parameters and therefore, could be used in both low- and high-production systems for weed management. Westminster had a superior WSA parameter. Therefore, it could be used for weed management in organic production systems. These results also implied that genotypic ranking on the basis of WSA and WTA could be used as an important tool in strengthening IWM programs for barley.

Light Quality and the Critical Period for Weed Control in Soybean

Weed Science ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Green-Tracewicz ◽  
Eric R. Page ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Light Quality ◽  
Morphological Changes ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Leaf Number ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Weed Competition ◽  
Shade Avoidance

The critical period for weed control (CPWC) is an integral component of integrated weed management strategies. Several studies have defined the CPWC in soybean under varying agronomic conditions, yet none have described the mechanisms involved in crop yield losses caused by weed competition. We hypothesized that under nonresource-limiting conditions, morphological changes resulting from the expression of shade avoidance could be used to define a period of developmental sensitivity to low red-to-far-red ratio (R : FR) that would overlap with the defined CPWC in soybean. Two experiments (a sequential harvest and a weed addition/removal series) were conducted in 2008 and 2009 under controlled environmental conditions to address this hypothesis. Two light-quality treatments were used: (1) high R : FR ratio (i.e., weed-free), and (2) low R : FR ratio (i.e., weedy). The low R : FR ratio treatment induced shade avoidance responses in soybean, which included increases in height, internode length, and the shoot : root ratio, as well as a reduction in biomass accumulation and leaf number. Using the morphological changes in biomass and leaf number observed in the weed addition/removal series, a period of developmental sensitivity to low R : FR was defined between the first trifoliate (V1) and third trifoliate (V3) stages of soybean development. This period was found to be very similar to the CPWC previously defined by field studies of soybean–weed competition.

CRITICAL PERIOD OF WEED INTERFERENCE IN FIELD-SEEDED TOMATOES AND ITS RELATION TO WATER STRESS AND SHADING

1987 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 575-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. WEAVER ◽  
C. S. TAN
Keyword(s):  
Water Stress ◽  
Lycopersicon Esculentum ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Weed Competition ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Light Levels

The critical period of weed interference in field-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum L. ’TH 318’) was determined in 1981, 1982 and 1983. The minimum weed-free period varied among years from 7 to 9 wk after sowing, while the maximum weed-infested period varied from 5 to 6 wk after sowing. A minimum of two weed control operations during the critical period was required to prevent yield losses. Reductions in tomato yields were correlated with weed dry weights and could be attributed both to reductions in light levels due to shading and weed competition for water which resulted in stomatal closure.Key words: Competition, critical period, weed, tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L.

scholarly journals Weed Interference and Control in Cowpea Production: A Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Adewale Osipitan
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Control Method ◽  
Insect Pests ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Weed Removal

In spite of the great economic potential of cowpea as both domestic and commercial crop, a number of constraints, which include insect pests, diseases and weeds, limits its production in West and many parts of Africa. Weeds reduced cowpea yield and value by competing for light, water and nutrients. Cowpea suffers from weeds particularly when the crop is in the early growth stages before ground cover. Yield losses cause by weeds alone in cowpea production can be as high as 76% depending on the cowpea cultivar, environment and weed management practices. A timely weed removal at the critical period, which falls within the first 40 days of cowpea growth, would help to prevent an unacceptable yield. Weed management in cowpea has been with low technology. Hand weeding is the most widely used weed control method in cowpea but they are usually expensive and labour intensive. Cultural practices such as narrow row spacing and planting of early maturing varieties are also used for weed control in cowpea. Herbicides, which are relatively easy to use and less expensive, have not been widely adopted for weed control in cowpea. There are limited number of selective herbicides with wide spectrum for weed control in cowpea. However, an integrated practices that involved pre-emergence weed control using herbicides or physical weeding, and a supplementary weed removal that would ensure weed control up to 40 days after cowpea emergence could substantially prevent yield losses associated with weed interference.

Weed management in direct seeded rice: A review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheeja K Raj ◽  
Elizabeth K Syriac
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Sustainable Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Seedling Emergence ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Weed Flora ◽  
Direct Seeded

Weeds are the major biological constraint in direct seeded rice (DSR) due to the concurrent emergence of competitive weeds, absence of water to suppress weeds at the time of seedling emergence and emergence of difficult to control weeds. Strategies on weed management in direct seeded rice depend on critical period of weed control, weed flora and method to be adopted. In order to achieve the long term and sustainable management of weeds in DSR an integration of different weed management strategies like integrated weed management (IWM) are essential. The literature regarding the critical period of weed control, weed flora and different methods for the sustainable management of weeds in direct seeded rice are reviewed in this paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document