Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-fg9bn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-17T21:12:06.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)Interactions with Nitrogen in Dryland and IrrigatedEnvironments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ella K. Ruf-Pachta ,
Dwain M. Rule  and
J. Anita Dille
Ella K. Ruf-Pachta
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
Dwain M. Rule
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
J. Anita Dille*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-5501
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dieleman@k-state.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Palmer amaranth influences selection of crop production practices such asirrigation, nitrogen (N) application, and weed control. The objectives ofthis research were to determine if Palmer amaranth was more responsive toapplied N than corn and if this differed under dryland and irrigatedconditions in Kansas. Field experiments were conducted near Manhattan, KS,in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate the influence of N rate and Palmer amaranthdensities when grown with corn in two soil moisture environments. A verydrought-stressed environment and a well-watered environment occurred in2006, while both environments in 2005 were intermediate. Dryland weed-freecorn yields were 46.5% of irrigated corn yields at the high N rate acrossyears. Irrigated corn yields responded to increasing N rates. In thepresence of Palmer amaranth, parameter estimates I and A for the yield lossrelationship were not different across N rates for each environment and yearexcept 2006 where 100% yield loss was estimated in dryland compared to 62.5%loss in irrigated environment at high N rates. In three of fourenvironment-years, N rate did not affect the corn yield loss relationshipwith weed density. In 2006 irrigated environment, greater N rates had lesscorn yield loss caused by Palmer amaranth. By corn anthesis, weed-free cornbiomass was 167.5% greater in irrigated than dryland environments in 2006.Palmer amaranth with no corn increased its biomass by 373 and 361% as N rateincreased in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Nitrogen concentrations in planttissues of corn or weed increased similarly as N rates increased from 0 to224 kg N ha−1, thus highlighting that both corn and Palmeramaranth responded similarly to increasing N. In general, soil moistureenvironment was most critical when determining potential corn yield,followed by Palmer amaranth density and N rate.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAcorn, Zea mays L. “DKC60-19RR”Crop-weed competitiondryland cornirrigated cornnitrogen rateyield loss

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 249 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Current address: 1915 190th Rd., Belleville, KS 66953.

Current address: DowAgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268.

References

Literature Cited

Barker, D. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., Walters, D. T., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Effect of nitrogen addition on the comparative productivity of corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 54: 354–363.Google Scholar
Berger, A., McDonald, A., and Riha, S. 2010. A coupled view of above and below-ground resource capture explains different weed impacts on soil water depletion and crop water productivity in maize. Field Crops Res. 119: 314–321.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Brandt, R. N. 2008. Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed competitiveness is species dependent. Weed Sci. 56: 743–747.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Brandt, R. N., Janzen, H. H., Entz, T., Grant, C. A., and Derksen, D. A. 2003. Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen. Weed Sci. 51: 532–539.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. J. and Swanton, C. J. 2003. Nitrogen management will influence threshold values of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) in corn. Weed Sci. 51: 975–986.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. J. and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Nitrogen and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition effects on corn growth and development. Weed Sci. 52: 1039–1049.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regression for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6: 898–903.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. App. Biol. 107: 239–252.Google Scholar
Deines, S. R., Dille, J. A., Blinka, E. L., Regehr, D. L., and Staggenborg, S. A. 2004. Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) interference in corn. Weed Sci. 52: 976–983.Google Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43: 491–497.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43: 612–618.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. 450 p.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2011. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed April 29, 2011.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48: 347–355.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 192–195.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44: 309–313.Google Scholar
Liphadzi, K. B. and Dille, J. A. 2006. Annual weed competitiveness as affected by preemergence herbicide in corn. Weed Sci. 54: 156–165.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49: 202–208.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., and Trooien, T. P. 2003. Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci. 51: 523–531.Google Scholar
Nielsen, D. C., Unger, P. W., and Miller, P. R. 2005. Efficient water use in dryland cropping systems in the Great Plains. Agron. J. 97: 364–372.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. H. and Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Corn-foxtail competition under various production conditions. Agron. J. 53: 1–5.Google Scholar
Norwood, C. A. 2000. Water use and yield of limited-irrigated and dryland corn. Soil Sci. Am. J. 64: 365–370.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1992. Nutrient accumulation by weeds and their associated vegetable crops. J. Hortic. Sci. 67: 189–195.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J. S., and Ghersa, C. M. 2007. Ecology of Weeds and Invasive Plants. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley. Pp. 192–193.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. S., Mills, H. A., and Jones, J. B. Jr. 1991. Corn response to post-tasseling nitrogen deprivation and to various ammonium/nitrate ratios. Agron. J. 83: 201–203.Google Scholar
Rule, D. M. 2007. Corn and Palmer amaranth interactions in dryland and irrigated environments. Ph.D dissertation. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Manhattan. http://hdl.handle.net/2097/377. Accessed June 1, 2011.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant Soil 135: 287–292.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of weed interference and soil nitrogen on four corn hybrids. Agron. J. 86: 596–601.Google Scholar