Response of corn (Zea mays L.) growth characteristics to common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) competition

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

Article 2, Volume 2, Issue 3 - Serial Number 5, September 2010, Pages 398-407   

Document Type: Scientific - Research

DOI: 10.22067/jag.v2i3.7653

Authors

Vahid Sarabi^* ; Ahmad Nezami; Mehdi Nassiri Mahallati; Mohammad Hasan Rashed Mohassel

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

In order to investigate the effects of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) competition on corn (Zea mays L.) morphological and physiological characteristics, an experiment was conducted in 2005-2006 at the Research Station of Agricultural Faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. The experimental design was split plot based on randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The emergence time was considered in three levels: emergence of the weed 14 days earlier, 7 days earlier and concurrent with corn, respectively, as main plots and density of weed at six levels: 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 plants per m2, respectively, as subplots. Plant height, leaf area index (LAI) and dry matter (DM) of corn decreased with earlier emerging and increasing density of the common lambsquarters. In contrast, LAI and dry matter of common lambsquarters increased with earlier emerging especially at high densities. Though, the increase in density of the weed resulted in reducing measured characteristics, but there was no difference between the processes of reduction in high densities of weed. Totally, it can be stated that relative time of weed emergence compared to its density had maximum effect on corn plants and as the number of the earlier emergence days of common lambsquarters related to the corn increase, the competitive potential of corn reduces and an intense decrease is being observed in its growth and development.

Keywords

Biomass; Density; Leaf area; Relative time of emergence

References

1- Bassett, I.J., and Crompton, C.W. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. 32. Chenopodium album. L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 58: 1061–1072.

2- Bosnic, A., and Swanton, C.J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Science 45: 276–282.

3- Caranza, P., Saaverda, M., and Garci-Torres, L. 1995. Competition between Ridolfia segetum Moris and Sunflower(Helianthus annuus L.). Weed Research 35: 375-396.

4- Chu, C., Ludford, P.M., Ozbun, J.L., and Sweet, R.D. 1978. Effects of temperature and competition on the establishment and growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and common lambsquarters(Chenopodium album. L.). Crop Science 18: 308–310.

5- Colquhoun, J., Boerboom, C. M., Binning, L. K., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Norman, J. M. 2001. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album. L.) photosynthesis and seed production in three environments. Weed Science 49: 334–339.

6- Cumming, B.G. 1963. The dependence of germination on photoperiod, light quality and temperature in Chenopodium spp. Canadian Journal of Botany 41: 1211–1233.

7- Dieleman, A., Hamill, A.S., Weise, S.F., and Swanton, C.J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max L.). Weed Science 43: 612–618.

8- Fletcher, W.W. 1983. Recent Advances in Weed Research. Common Wealth Agricultural Bureau, England.

9- Harrison, S.K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) in soybean (Glycine max L.). Weed Science 38: 113–118.

10- Harrison, S.K., Regnier, E.E., Schmoll, J.T., and Webb, J.E. 2001. Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed(Ambrosia trifida L.) in corn(Zea mays L.). Weed Science 49: 224–229.

11- Hartzler, R.G., Battles, B.A., and Nordby, D. 2004. Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean (Glycine max L.). Weed Science 52: 242-245.

12- Henson, I.E. 1970. The effects of light, potassium, nitrate and temperature on the germination of Chenopodium album L. Weed Research 10: 27–39.

13- Holm, L.G., Pluknett, D.L., Pancho, J.V., and Herberger, J.P. 1977. The Worlds Worst Weeds. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. 609 pp.

14- Kempenaar, C., Horsten, P.J.F.M., and Scheepens, P.C. 1996. Growth and competitiveness of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) after foliar application of Ascochyta caulina as a mycoherbicide. Weed Science 44: 609–614.

15- 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 Research 35: 207–214.

16- Knezevic, S.Z., Weise, S.F., and Swanton, C.J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Science 42: 568–573.

17- Kropff, M.J., and Spitters, C.J.T. 1992. An eco-physiological model for interspesific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.): model description and parametrization. Weed Science 32: 437-490.

18- Kropff, M.J., Var Keulen, N.C., Van Laar, H.H., and Schnieders, B.J. 1993. The impact of environmental and genetic factors. In: M. J. Kropff and H.H. Van Laar (Eds). Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. International Rice Research Institute, pp. 137-147.

19- Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Research 13: 179–191.

20- Loomis, R.S., Williams, W.A., Duncan, W.G., Dovrat, A., and Nunez, F. 1968. Quantitative descriptions of foliage display and light absorption in field communities of corn plants. Crop Science 8: 352-359.

21- Martin, M.P.L.D., and Field, R.J. 1988. Influence of time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) on competition with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Weed Research 28: 111–116.

22- Massinga, R.A., Currie, R.S., Horak, M.J., and Boyer J.J. 2001. Interference of palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Science 49: 202–208.

23- Mc Lachlan, S.M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C.J., and Weise, S.F. 1993. Effect of corn induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Weed Science 41: 568–573.

24- Mulugeta, D., and Stoltenberg, D.E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium demography. Weed Science 46: 65–70.

25- O’Donovan, J.T., de St. Remy, E.A., O’Sullivan, P.A., Dew, D.A., and Sharma, A.K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Weed Science 33: 498–503.

26- Ogg, A.G., and Dawson, J.H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Science 32: 327–335.

27- Orwick, P.L., and Schreiber, M.M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta-alba or robusta-purpurea) in soybean (Glycine max L.). Weed Science 27: 665-674.

28- Pandey, H.N., Misra, K.C., and Mukherjee, K.L. 1971. Phosphate uptake and its incorporation in some crop plants and their associated weeds. Annals of Botany 35: 367–372.

29- Peters, N.C.B., and Wilson, B.J. 1983. Some studies on the competition between (Avena fatua L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). II. Variation of A. fatua L. emergence and development and its influence on crop yield. Weed Research 23: 305–311.

30- Pour azar, and R., Ghadiri, H. 2002. Wild oat (Avena fatua L.) competition with three varieties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at greenhouse condition: density effects. Agronomy Science Journal 1 (2): 59-72. (In Persian with English Summary)

31- Rajcan, I., Chandler, K.J., and Swanton, C.J. 2004. Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Science 52: 774–778.

32- Sinoquet, H., and Caldwell, R.M. 1995. Estimation of light capture and partitioning in intercropping systems. In: “Sinoquet, H., and Cruz, P. (eds)”. Ecophysiology of Tropical Intercropping. Paris: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA). pp. 79–80.

33- Smith, C.W., Betran, J., and Runge, E.C.A. 2004. Corn (Origin, History, Technology, and Production). John Wiley & Sons, INC.

34- Strahan, R.E., Griffin, J.L.D., Reynolds, B., and Miller, D.K. 2000. Interference between Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) W.D. Clayton and Zea mays L. Weed Science 48: 205–211.

35- Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A.A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S.F., and Swanton, C.J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agronomy Journal 86: 591-595.

36- Van Acer, R.C., Weise, C.F., and Swanton, C.J. 1993. Influence of interference from a mixed weed species stand on soybean (Glycine max L.) growth. Plant Science 73: 1293-1304.

37- Vengris, J. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agronomy Journal 47: 213–215.

38- Weaver, S.E., Tan, C.S., and Brain, P. 1988. Effect of temperature and soil moisture on time of emergence of tomatoes and four weed species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68: 877–886.

39- Wiese, A.M., and Binning, L.K. 1987. Calculating the threshold temperature of development for weeds. Weed Science 35: 177–179.

40- Williams, J.L., and Harper, J.L. 1965. Seed polymorphism and germination. I. The influence of nitrates and low temperatures on the germination of Chenopodium album L. Weed Research 5: 141–150.