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 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 (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.

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.

The Critical Period of Weed Control in White Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Weed Science ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian L. Woolley ◽  
Thomas E. Michaels ◽  
Michael R. Hall ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton
Keyword(s):  
Phaseolus Vulgaris ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Stages Of Growth ◽  
White Bean ◽  
Pod Number

Field studies were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to determine the critical period for weed control in white bean grown in Ontario. The treatments consisted of either allowing weeds to infest the crop for increasing durations after planting or maintaining plots weed free for increasing durations after planting. The beginning of the critical period was defined as the crop stage by which weed interference reduced yields by 3%. Similarly, the end of the critical period was defined as the crop stage to which the crop had to be weed free to prevent a 3% yield loss. The critical period of weed control occurred between the second-trifoliolate and first-flower stages of growth for all cultivars and years, with the exception of the cultivar ‘OAC Seaforth’ in 1986. The average number of pods per plant for both cultivars was reduced by increasing durations of weed interference after planting in both years. However, pod number of the cultivar OAC Seaforth was reduced at a greater rate in 1986 than ‘Ex Rico 23’. The beginning of the critical period corresponded with the beginning of a rapid increase in total weed biomass.

scholarly journals Determining the critical period for weed control in high-yielding cotton using common sunflower as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growing Degree Days ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Planting Season

AbstractField studies were conducted over six seasons to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding cotton, using common sunflower as a mimic weed. Common sunflower was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 plants m−2. Common sunflower was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 growing degree days (GDD) after planting. Season-long interference resulted in no harvestable cotton at densities of five or more common sunflower plants m−2. High levels of intraspecific and interspecific competition occurred at the highest weed densities, with increases in weed biomass and reductions in crop yield not proportional to the changes in weed density. Using a 5% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC extended from 43 to 615 GDD, and 20 to 1,512 GDD for one and 50 common sunflower plants m−2, respectively. These results highlight the high level of weed control required in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of control.

Critical Period for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Pickling Cucumber

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 586-591
Author(s):  
Samuel J. McGowen ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
Sushila Chaudhari ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
Jonathan R. Schultheis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Marketable Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Pickling Cucumber ◽  
Cucumber Yield

AbstractField studies were conducted in North Carolina to determine the critical period for Palmer amaranth control (CPPAC) in pickling cucumber. In removal treatments (REM), emerged Palmer amaranth were allowed to compete with cucumber for 14, 21, 28, or 35 d after sowing (DAS) in 2014 and 14, 21, 35, or 42 DAS in 2015, and cucumber was kept weed-free for the remainder of the season. In the establishment treatments (EST), cucumber was maintained free of Palmer amaranth by hand removal until 14, 21, 28, or 35 DAS in 2014 and until 14, 21, 35, or 42 DAS in 2015; after this, Palmer amaranth was allowed to establish and compete with the cucumber for the remainder of the season. The beginning and end of the CPPAC, based on 5% loss of marketable yield, was determined by fitting log-logistic and Gompertz equations to the relative yield data representing REM and EST, respectively. Season-long competition by Palmer amaranth reduced pickling cucumber yield by 45% to 98% and 88% to 98% during 2014 and 2015, respectively. When cucumber was planted on April 25, 2015, the CPPAC ranged from 570 to 1,002 heat units (HU), which corresponded to 32 to 49 DAS. However, when cucumber planting was delayed 2 to 4 wk (May 7 and May 21, 2014 and May 4, 2015), the CPPAC lasted from 100 to 918 HU (7 to 44 DAS). This research suggested that planting pickling cucumber as early as possible during the season may help to reduce competition by Palmer amaranth and delay the beginning of the CPPAC.

The Critical Period of Weed Control in Grain Corn (Zea mays)

Weed Science ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Hall ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton ◽  
Glenn W. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Zea Mays ◽  
Leaf Area ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Southern Ontario ◽  
Leaf Stage ◽  
Individual Leaf ◽  
Logistic Equations ◽  
Weed Interference

Field studies were conducted in southern Ontario to determine the critical period of weed control in grain corn and the influence of weed interference on corn leaf area. The Gompertz and logistic equations were fitted to data representing increasing durations of weed control and weed interference, respectively. The beginning of the critical period varied from the 3- to 14-leaf stages of corn development However, the end of the critical period was less variable and ended on average at the 14-leaf stage. Weed interference reduced corn leaf area by reducing the expanded leaf area of each individual leaf and accelerating senescence of lower leaves. In addition, weed interference up to the 14-leaf stage of corn development impeded leaf expansion and emergence in 1989.

Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in sweetpotato

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 547-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Smith ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
Sushila Chaudhari ◽  
Jonathan R. Schultheis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Logistic Model ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Marketable Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Critical Timing

AbstractPalmer amaranth is the most common and troublesome weed in North Carolina sweetpotato. Field studies were conducted in Clinton, NC, in 2016 and 2017 to determine the critical timing of Palmer amaranth removal in ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. Palmer amaranth was grown with sweetpotato from transplanting to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 wk after transplanting (WAP) and maintained weed-free for the remainder of the season. Palmer amaranth height and shoot dry biomass increased as Palmer amaranth removal was delayed. Season-long competition by Palmer amaranth interference reduced marketable yields by 85% and 95% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Sweetpotato yield loss displayed a strong inverse linear relationship with Palmer amaranth height. A 0.6% and 0.4% decrease in yield was observed for every centimeter of Palmer amaranth growth in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The critical timing for Palmer amaranth removal, based on 5% loss of marketable yield, was determined by fitting a log-logistic model to the relative yield data and was determined to be 2 WAP. These results show that Palmer amaranth is highly competitive with sweetpotato and should be managed as early as possible in the season. The requirement of an early critical timing of weed removal to prevent yield loss emphasizes the importance of early-season scouting and Palmer amaranth removal in sweetpotato fields. Any delay in removal can result in substantial yield reductions and fewer premium quality roots.

The Critical Period of Bengal Dayflower (Commelina Bengalensis) Control in Peanut

Weed Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Webster ◽  
Wilson H. Faircloth ◽  
J. Timothy Flanders ◽  
Eric P. Prostko ◽  
Timothy L. Grey
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Plant Pathogens ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Peanut Crop ◽  
The Relationship

Bengal dayflower (also known as tropical spiderwort) is one of the most troublesome weeds in peanut in Georgia, United States. Field studies conducted in 2004 and 2005 evaluated the relationship between the duration of Bengal dayflower interference and peanut yield in an effort to optimize the timing of weed control. In 2004, the critical period of weed control (CPWC) necessary to avoid greater than 5% peanut yield loss was between 316 and 607 growing degree days (GDD), which corresponded to an interval between June 8 and July 2. In 2005, the CPWC ranged from 185 to 547 GDD, an interval between May 30 and July 3. Maximum yield loss in 2005 from season-long interference of Bengal dayflower was 51%. In 2004, production of peanut pods was eliminated by interference with Bengal dayflower for the initial 6 wk (495 GDD) of the growing season. Robust Bengal dayflower growth in 2004 shaded the peanut crop, likely intercepting fungicide applications and causing a reduction in peanut yield. Therefore, the competitive effects of Bengal dayflower are likely complicated with the activity of plant pathogens. In spite of higher Bengal dayflower population densities, greater Bengal dayflower growth, and greater peanut yield losses in 2004 than in 2005, the CPWC was a relatively similar 4-wk period that ended during the first week of July, for peanut that was planted in the first week of May.

Cotton Planting Date Affects The Critical Period of Benghal Dayflower (Commelina benghalensis) Control

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Webster ◽  
Timothy L. Grey ◽  
J. Timothy Flanders ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cotton Field ◽  
Commelina Benghalensis ◽  
Critical Range ◽  
Benghal Dayflower

Benghal dayflower (formerly known as tropical spiderwort) is one of the most troublesome weeds in Georgia cotton. Field studies were conducted from 2003 to 2005 to evaluate the relationship between the duration of Benghal dayflower interference and cotton yield to establish optimum weed-control timing. To determine the critical period of weed control (CPWC), Benghal dayflower interference with cotton was allowed or prohibited in 2-wk intervals between 0 to 12 wk after crop planting. Maximum yield loss from Benghal dayflower in May-planted cotton was 21 to 30% in 2004 and 2005, whereas cotton planting delayed until June resulted in maximum yield losses of 40 to 60%. June-planted cotton had a CPWC of 190 to 800 growing degree days (GDD) in 2004 (52-d interval beginning at 16 d after planting [DAP]) and 190 to 910 GDD in 2005 (59-d interval beginning at 18 DAP). In contrast, May-planted cotton in 2005 had a narrower CPWC interval of 396 to 587 GDD (18 d) that occurred 3 wk later in the growing season (initiated at 39 DAP). May-planted cotton in 2004 did not have a critical range of weed-free conditions. Instead, a single weed removal at 490 GDD (44 DAP) averted a yield loss greater than 5%. It is recommended that fields infested with Benghal dayflower be planted with cotton early in the growing season to minimize weed interference with the crop.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document