Growth Responses, Competitiveness and Control of Digitaria Nuda (Schumach.) in Maize ( Zea Mays )
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Growth responses, competitiveness and control of Digitaria nuda (Schumach.) in maize ( Zea mays ) by Elbé Hugo Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree PhD in Agronomy In the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Department of Plant Production and Soil Science University of Pretoria Pretoria Supervisors: Prof CF Reinhardt Dr BJ Vorster Co-Supervisor: Dr AEJ Saayman-Du Toit January 2014 CONTENTS DECLARATION vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES viii ABSTRACT 1 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 3 1.1. History and description of Digitaria spp ... 3 1.2. Weed status and crop-weed competition 10 1.3. Germination characteristics 12 1.4. Control of crabgrass 14 1.5. Problem statement and impact of research 20 CHAPTER 2: Germination characteristics of the grass weed Digitaria nuda (Schumach.) 23 Abstract 23 2.1. Introduction 24 2.2. Materials and methods 26 2.2.1. Seed collection 26 2.2.2. Germination tests 27 2.2.3. Effect of pre-chilling 29 2.2.4. Data analysis of germination tests 29 2.2.5. Effect of burial depth 30 2.3. Results 32 2.3.1. Germination tests 32 2.3.2. Effect of pre-chilling 37 2.3.3. Burial depth 39 ii 2.4. Discussion 41 References 46 CHAPTER 3: A comparison between relative competitive abilities of naked crabgrass (Digitaria nuda Schumach.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.) in two soil water regimens 50 Abstract 50 3.1. Introduction 51 3.2. Materials and methods 53 3.2.1. Plant material and growth conditions 53 3.2.2. Species combination design 54 3.2.3. Water regimes 54 3.2.4. Biomass sampling 55 3.2.5. Competitive indices 55 3.2.6. Statistical analysis 57 3.3. Results 57 3.3.1. Biomass production and allocation 57 3.3.2.Competition indices 64 3.4. Discussion 68 CHAPTER 4: Comparative interference and competition status of naked crabgrass ( Digitaria nuda Schumach.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.) on maize 73 Abstract 73 4.1. Introduction 74 4.2. Materials and methods 76 4.2.1. Statistical analysis 78 iii 4.3. Results 79 4.4. Discussion 92 CHAPTER 5 Critical periods of weed control for naked crabgrass ( Digitaria nuda Schumach.), a grass weed in maize in South Africa 97 Abstract 97 5.1. Introduction 98 5.2. Materials and methods 101 5.2.1. Experimental site 1 101 5.2.2. Experimental site 2 104 5.2.3. Statistical analysis 104 5.3. Results and Discussion 105 5.3.1. Yield responses 105 5.3.2. Weed growth and biomass 108 5.3.3. Critical periods of weed control 111 CHAPTER 6 Comparative efficacy of herbicides registered on maize to control naked crabgrass ( Digitaria nuda Schumach.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L) Scop.) 119 Abstract 119 6.1. Introduction 120 6.2. Materials and methods 122 6.2.1. Experiment 1: Greenhouse trial 122 6.2.2. Experiment 2: Field trial 1 123 6.2.3. Experiment 3: Field trial 2 125 6.2.4. Statistical analysis 126 6.3 Results 127 iv 6.3.1. Experiment 1: Greenhouse trial 127 6.3.2. Experiment 2: Field trial 1 130 6.3.3. Experiment 3: Field trial 2 136 6.4. Discussion 139 CHAPTER 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION 143 REFERENCES 149 APPENDIX A: LABORATORY ANALYSIS 165 APPENDIX B: TRIAL PHOTOS 168 APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 172 v DECLARATION I, Elbé Hugo , declare that the thesis, which I hereby submit for the degree PhD (Agronomy) at the University of Pretoria, is my own work and has not previously been submitted by me for a degree at this or any other tertiary institution. SIGNATURE: . DATE: 12 May 2014. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the study supervisors, Prof CF Reinhardt and Dr BJ Vorster, of the Department of Plant Production and Soil Science, University of Pretoria, for guidance and review of the draft manuscript. I want to express my sincere thanks to the co-supervisor, Dr AEJ Saayman-Du Toit, of the Agricultural Research Council’s Grain Crops Institute for her constant encouragement, availability and review of the draft manuscript. The Maize Trust and Agricultural Research Council’s Grain Crops Institute provided the facilities and funding to enable this study. The author is indebted to: Mrs MM van der Walt for her valuable technical assistance and encouragement throughout the study. Mrs L Morey for biometrical assistance. Dr JBJ van Rensburg for editing the draft manuscript. Mrs L Fish of the South African National Botanical Institute (Herbarium Section). Without the support of my parents and three children, Wehan, Pierro and Corlie, I would not have succeeded in completing this study. Finally I thank my Heavenly Father for courage and strength to keep on. vii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1.1. Close up comparison of “clean” stems of naked crabgrass and hairy stems of large crabgrass ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 1.2. Comparison between tufts of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass .................... 6 Figure 1.3. Comparison between seedling growth of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass. 7 Figure 1.4. Comparison between seed of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass ................... 8 Table 1.1. Comparison between large crabgrass , naked crabgrass and Southern crabgrass annual grass weed species ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.5. Typical acetochlor damage on maize seedlings (whiplashing) .......................... 16 Table 1.2. Herbicides registered in South Africa for control of large crabgrass ( D. sanguinalis ). ........................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 1.6. National chart of South Africa to show areas where naked crabgrass was sampled and where field trials were conducted. .................................................................. 22 Table 2.1. Seed properties of D. nuda collected in Potchefstroom from 2007 to 2011. ....... 27 Table 2.2. Average 10-year maximum and minimum temperatures for four South African localities where severe D. nuda infestations had been reported. ......................................... 29 Figure 2.1. Cumulative germination patterns of stored (1-yr old, solid legends) and fresh (open legends) D. nuda seed at constant temperatures regimes of (a) 25 and (b) 30 °C and fluctuating temperatures of (c) 25/10 and (d) 30/15 °C for control, KNO 3 and soaking in water for 24 h treatments. (Symbols are the actual data and lines are the predicted values fitted to the Mitscherlich curve Y = M[1 - exp(- K(t - L))], using the values shown in Table 2.3) ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 2.3. Parameter estimates of the logistic function (Mitscherlich curve) fitted to cumulative germination in Figure 1. ..................................................................................... 35 Table 2.4. Effect of different temperature regimes and germination treatments on final germination (%) of stored (1-yr old) and fresh D. nuda seed. .............................................. 37 Figure 2.2. Effect of pre-chilling on the germination of fresh and stored (1-yr old) D. nuda seed subjected to various pre-treatments to enhance germination at fluctuating 30/15 °C temperature regime (Significance determined at P=0.05 according to Fisher’s LSD (Pre-chilling x Pre-treatment x Seed age ) ................................................................................................................. 38 viii Figure 2.3. Effect of burial depth on mean time to emergence and dry mass per plant of D. nuda seedlings harvested 40 days after seeding (Significance determined at P=0.05 according to Fisher’s LSD) .................................................................................................. 40 Figure 2.4. Effect of increasing burial depth on the total plants of D. nuda emerged (solid line represent mean and dashed lines indicates relationship for each seed year). ..................... 41 Table 3.1. The effect of treatment combinations on panicle, seed, tiller, shoot, root and total biomass of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass in two watering regimes (wet and dry soil profile). [See ANOVA table C3.1] ........................................................................................ 58 Table 3.2. Panicle and tiller numbers of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass and their treatment ratio within a replacement series for each soil profile. ......................................... 60 Figure 3.1. The root, shoot, seed and total biomass of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass and their combination in their various treatment combinations within a replacement series (mean of two soil profiles). Bars represent the standard errors of the mean. ....................... 62 Figure 3.2. The root:shoot ratio of (A) naked crabgrass and (B) large crabgrass in their various treatment combinations within a replacement series for a wet and dry soil profile. .. 63 Table 3.3. Aggressivity index (AI) values based on root, shoot and total biomass of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass in their various treatment ratio within a replacement series 64 Table 3.4. Competitive ratio (CR) values based on root, shoot and total biomass of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass in their various treatment ratio within a replacement series. 66 Table 3.5. Competitive ratio (CR) values based on root, shoot and total biomass of naked crabgrass and large crabgrass in a wet and dry soil profile. ...............................................