The use of POST herbicides has been limited in sweet corn because of the narrow spectrum of weed control or potential crop injury. Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone applied POST in sweet corn at three locations. Efficacy of mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone applied alone or mixed with atrazine was compared to other labeled POST herbicides following PRE S-metolachlor. Giant foxtail control was greater with tembotrione or topramezone than mesotrione alone or mixed with atrazine. Common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, and common ragweed were controlled 98% or greater with the HPPD-inhibiting herbicides when mixed with atrazine. Tolerance of six sweet corn hybrids was determined in the field when treated with 1× and 2× rates of these herbicides mixed with atrazine. Tolerance of six sweet corn hybrids to these herbicides was determined in the greenhouse when treated with 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 times the labeled rate. Differential hybrid tolerance to each herbicide was observed in both the field and greenhouse evaluations. Tembotrione killed ‘Merit’ in both evaluations. Excluding Merit, hybrids generally had good tolerance to tembotrione and topramezone in the field, but had differential tolerance to mesotrione. With the exception of Merit, hybrids generally had greater tolerance to tembotrione than topramezone and less tolerance to mesotrione in the greenhouse. These HPPD-inhibiting herbicides provide POST weed control, but the potential for sweet corn injury varies among the herbicides and hybrids and warrants further characterization.

No abstract

Light is an essential requirement for proper plant growth and development. Growth chamber experiments were conducted to determine whether artificial alteration of light quality (reducing the red to far-red ratio-R:FR) differentially affected the growth and development of giant foxtail and wild proso millet, two troublesome annual grass weeds in the United States. Growth phenotypes of both weeds were examined under two R:FR regimes (0.28-reduced R:FR and 1.12-unaltered R:FR) in the absence of competition (control conditions) and under intraspecific and interspecific competition. The reduced R:FR simulated shaded (below-canopy) R:FR conditions in the field while the unaltered R:FR treatment simulated direct sunlight (above-canopy) conditions. Averaged across weed species, reducing the R:FR increased plant height, but reduced tiller production and above-ground biomass under no plant competition (P<0.05). In the presence of competition, reducing the R:FR increased plant height and internode length but reduced the number of tillers and leaf area across weed species. No phenotypic differences were observed for weeds tested under intraspecific or interspecific competition. Our study has shown that the response of both weeds to artificial R:FR alteration is similar to that observed under shaded field conditions. Therefore, by replacing bordering plants with a crop, controlled experiments can be used to test the effect of crop canopies on weed suppression when selecting cultivars to be planted in areas where certain weed species are prevalent, minimizing weed-related yield losses.

Crop canopy architecture is known to affect weed performance. Field experiments were conducted to examine the effect of altered crop canopy architecture and light interception on growth and development of wild proso millet and giant foxtail, two problematic weed species. Crop canopy architecture was manipulated by planting two sweet corn varieties contrasting in canopy architecture (Bonus-has a dense leaf canopy and Sprint-has an open leaf canopy) at two row spacings (51-cm and 76-cm rows). Results showed that sweet corn variety, rather than row spacing, altered crop canopy architecture, which in turn altered photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and red:far-red light ratio (R:FR) received by both weeds. The competitive Bonus canopy had a higher (P<0.05) PAR and R:FR than Sprint at anthesis and harvest. Bonus also more effectively suppressed weed growth and development than Sprint, and weeds growing on Bonus plots had reduced tiller numbers, reduced biomass, lower population densities, and reduced seed production (P<0.05). These responses were attributed to the Bonus canopy having a higher canopy area index, which intercepted more light resulting in lower PAR and R:FR received by both weeds. This study suggests that crop variety selection is an important consideration for weed suppression in row-cropping systems.