Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:05:51.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Competition and Economic Thresholds in Conventional- and No-Tillage Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John Cardina ,
Emilie Regnier  and
Denise Sparrow
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio Agric. Res. and Dev. Ctr, Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH 44691
Emilie Regnier
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio Agric. Res. and Dev. Ctr, Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH 44691
Denise Sparrow
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio Agric. Res. and Dev. Ctr, Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH 44691
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in conventional and no-tillage corn in 1990, 1991, and 1992 at Wooster, OH, to measure corn yield and velvetleaf seed production in response to density of early and late emerging velvetleaf, and to estimate economic thresholds. The percent reduction in corn yield fit a hyperbolic function over velvetleaf densities from 1 to 30 plants m2. The percent yield loss and velvetleaf seed production were higher in a warm, wet year (1990) than in a dry (1991) or cold, wet year (1992). The percent corn yield reduction was generally greater in no-tillage than in conventional tillage and from early rather than late emerging velvetleaf. Maximum velvetleaf seed production ranged from about 18,000 seeds m2 for early emerging weeds in no-tillage in 1990 to 100 seeds m2 for late emerging weeds in no-tillage in 1992. The single year economic threshold for early emerging velvetleaf ranged from 0.40 to 14.0 velvetleaf m2 in conventional tillage and 0.13 to 3.13 in no-tillage. Economic thresholds that were predicted using yield goal information deviated from actual thresholds (using actual yields) for a given year by −43 to 30%. Single year economic thresholds were similar in both tillage treatments, but their value for management decisions is questionable due to variation among growing seasons and weed seed production from subthreshold populations.

Keywords

velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus. #3 ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DK453.’Economic thresholdcompetitionseed rainABUTH
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

1. Andersen, R. N., Menges, R. M., and Conn, J. S. 1985. Variability in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and reproduction beyond its current range in North America. Weed Sci. 33:507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bauer, T. A., Mortensen, D. A., Wicks, G. A., Hayden, T. A., and Martin, A. R. 1991. Environmental variability associated with economic thresholds for soybeans. Weed Sci. 39:564–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Coble, H. D. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol. 6:191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. J. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. 2:13–20.Google Scholar
7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cousens, R., Doyle, C. J., Wilson, B. J., and Cussans, G. W. 1986. Modelling the economics of controlling Ayena fatua in winter wheat. Pestic. Sci. 17:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. DeFelice, M. S., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. 1988. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth and development in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Koskinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:365–370.Google Scholar
11. Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991 Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Norris, R. F. 1984. Weed thresholds in relation to long-term population dynamics. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 37:38–44.Google Scholar
14. Ritter, R. L. 1986. Triazine resistant velvetleaf and giant foxtail control in no-tillage corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 40:50–52.Google Scholar
15. Sattin, M., Zanin, G., and Berti, A. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Spencer, N.R. 1987. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae) history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Steele, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. pp. 258–261. McGraw-Hill, Inc., N.Y. Google Scholar
18. Wilkinson, L. 1989. SYSTAT: The system for statistics. SYSTAT, Inc. Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
19. Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar