The critical period for weed control in three corn (Zea mays L.) types


Tursun N., Datta A., Sakinmaz M. S., Kantarci Z., Knezevic S. Z., Chauhan B. S.

CROP PROTECTION, cilt.90, ss.59-65, 2016 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 90
  • Basım Tarihi: 2016
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.08.019
  • Dergi Adı: CROP PROTECTION
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.59-65
  • İnönü Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Knowledge of the crop-weed competition period is vital for designing effective weed management strategies in crop production systems. Field studies were conducted at the Agricultural Research Institute, Kahramanmaras, Turkey in 2013 and 2014 to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in three corn (Zea mays L.) types (field corn, popcorn, and sweet corn). A four parameter log-logistic model described the relationship between relative crop yield to both increasing duration of weed interference and length of weed-free periods. The relative yield of corn was influenced by duration of weed-infested or weed-free period, regardless of corn types. Increasing periods of weed interference significantly reduced corn yields in both years. In field corn, the CPWC ranged from 175 to 788 growing degree days (GDD) in 2013 which corresponded to V2-V12 growth stages, and 165-655 GDD (V1-V10 growth stages) in 2014 based on the 5% acceptable yield loss (AYL) level. In popcorn, the CPWC ranged from 92 to 615 GDD (VE-V10 growth stages) in 2013 and 110-678 GDD (V1-V10 growth stages) in 2014. In sweet corn, the CPWC ranged from 203 to 611 GDD in 2013 (V2-V10 growth stages) and 182-632 GDD (V2-V10 growth stages) in 2014. The practical implication of this study is that weed management should be initiated around V1 stage and maintained weed-free up to V12 stage in all corn types to prevent yield losses greater than 5%. These findings could help corn producers improve the cost effectiveness and efficacy of their weed management programs. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.