Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:46:19.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of corn (Zea mays) yield loss from early observations of the relative leaf area and the relative leaf cover of weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mathieu Ngouajio ,
Claudel Lemieux  and
Gilles D. Leroux
Mathieu Ngouajio
Affiliation:
Department of Phytology, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1K 7P4
Gilles D. Leroux
Affiliation:
Department of Phytology, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1K 7P4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relative leaf area of weeds is a good predictor of the outcome of weed-crop competition. However, this variable has not been used in decision-making tools for integrated weed management because leaf area cannot be measured quickly. A powerful image analysis system for measuring leaf cover (the vertical projection of plant canopy on the ground) has been developed and validated. This research was conducted to compare the efficiency of weed relative leaf area and relative leaf cover in predicting corn yield loss. Field studies were conducted in 1996 and 1997 using varying densities of common lambsquarters, barnyardgrass, common lambsquarters plus barnyardgrass, and a natural weed community. Corn grain yield and biomass loss varied with weed infestation type and year. Values of the relative damage coefficient of weeds (q) were smaller in 1997 compared with 1996. For both years, the relative leaf area of weeds was an adequate predictor of corn yield loss (r 2 varied from 0.61 to 0.92). The precision of the predictions was not influenced by the leaf area sampling period (four- or eight-leaf stage of corn). In general, smaller values of q and m (predicted maximum yield loss) were obtained as a consequence of using the relative leaf cover of weeds in model fitting. However, percentages of variation explained by the model (from 0.67 to 0.90) were similar to values obtained with the relative leaf area. On the basis of the residual mean squares, neither of the variables could be declared superior to the other in yield loss prediction. The development of weed control decision-making tools using the relative leaf cover of weeds may require improvements prior to being used in weed management systems. Such improvements would include use of appropriate sampling and image-processing techniques, development and validation of empirical models specific to individual situations, and proper identification of the crop growth stage at which leaf cover must be assessed.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3967’common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGIntegrated weed managementweed control decision-makingyield loss predictionempirical modelsbiomass reductionCHEALECHCG

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , June 1999 , pp. 297 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

For the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1984. Maïs, Culture. Agdex 111–20. Québec, Canada: Conseil des Productions Végétales du Québec. 21 p.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985a. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985b. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513–521.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Peters, N.C.B., and Marshall, C. J. 1984. Models of yield loss-weed density relationships. Pages 367–374 in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Weed Biology, Ecology and Systematics. Paris: Columa-EWRS.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921–927.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O. 1996. Herbicide resistant crops: background and perspectives. Pages 1–3 in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. N. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, K. A. 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology. 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier Publishing Company. 308 p.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
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 Res. 35:207–214.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992a. Optimization of weed management systems: the role of ecological models of interplant competition. Weed Technol. 6:462–70.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992b. Systems approach to quantify crop-weed interactions and their application to weed management. Agric. Syst. 40:265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Lotz, L.A.P., Weaver, S. E., Bos, H. J., Wallinga, J., and Migo, T. 1995. A two-parameter model for prediction of crop loss by weed competition from early observations of relative leaf area of weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126:329–346.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations of relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–105.Google Scholar
Lemieux, C., Cloutier, D. C., and Leroux, G. D. 1992. Sampling quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) populations. Weed Sci. 40:534–541.Google Scholar
Lemieux, C., Panneton, B., and Benoit, D. 1995. L'analyse d'image en malherbologie. Pages 201–208 in Actes Colloque International sur la Prévision et le Dépistage des Ennemis des Cultures. Québec.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Christensen, S., Cloutier, D., et al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 36:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Kropff, M. J., Bos, B., and Wallinga, J. 1992. Prediction of yield loss based on relative leaf cover of weeds. Pages 290–293 in Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Kropff, M. J., Wallinga, J., Bos, H. J., and Groeneveld, R.M.W. 1994. Techniques to estimate relative leaf area and cover of weeds in crops for yield prediction. Weed Res. 34:167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Wallinga, J., and Kropff, M. J. 1995. Crop-weed interaction: Quantification and prediction. Pages 31–47 in Glen, D. M., Greaves, M. P., and Anderson, H. M., eds. Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Lutman, P.J.W. 1992. Prediction of the competitive ability of weeds on the yield of several spring-sown arable crops. Pages 337–345 in Actes IXème colloque international sur la biologic des mauvaises herbes. Dijon, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Mortimer, A. M. 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. Pages 1–25 in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J.A.M., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., Lemieux, C., Fortier, J. J., Careau, D., and Leroux, G. D. 1998. Validation of an operator-assisted module to measure weed and crop leaf cover by digital image analysis. Weed Technol. 12:446–453.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT™ User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Gary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar