Abstract
Abstract Water stress and weed competition are critical stressors during corn ( Zea mays L.) development. Genetic improvements in corn have resulted in hybrids with greater tolerance to abiotic and biotic stressors; however, drought stress remains problematic. Therefore, in light of the anticipated change in precipitation throughout the Great Lakes Region, greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate water stress and weed competition on drought-tolerant corn performance. The study followed a completely randomized block design with four replications. Factorial treatment combinations consisted of drought-tolerant corn competition (presence or absence), water stress (100% or 50% volumetric water content [VWC]), and nine corn:common lambsquarters ( Chenopodium album L., CHEAL) densities. Corn and C. album growth parameters were measured at 14 and 21 d after water-stress initiation. To explore the impact of reduced soil moisture and weed competition on corn and C. album growth parameters, photosynthetic response, and biomass, linear mixed-effects and nonlinear regression models were constructed in R. Chenopodium album biomass was reduced by 46% and 50% under corn competition at 2 and 4 weeds pot −1 (P = 0.0003, 0.0004). However, introducing crop competition under 6 and 9 weeds pot −1 did not reduce C. album biomass (P = 0.90, 1.00). Averaged across weed pressures, corn biomass was 22% less when grown under 50% compared with 100% VWC (P = 0.0003). However, averaged across VWC values, increasing weed competition from 0 to 2 (P = 0.04), 4 (P = <0.0001), 6 (P = 0.0002), or 9 (P = 0.0002) weeds pot −1 reduced biomass by 22%, 38%, 35%, and 36%. Overall, water stress and C. album competition negatively affected the parameters measured in this study; however, the magnitude of reduction is stronger under drought stress than increasing weed competition when water is not limiting. Therefore, field crop growers must modify current integrated weed management programs to maintain yield under future climate stress.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Corn competition reduced C. album biomass by 46% at 2 weeds pot −1.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- corn competitione0
- Interactor
- Chenopodium album
Chenopodium albume0weed - Outcome
- Chenopodium album biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 46%e0
Not reportedComparatorQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chenopodium album biomass was reduced by 46% and 50% under corn competition at 2 and 4 weeds pot −1 (P = 0.0003, 0.0004).”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn competition reduced C. album biomass by 50% at 4 weeds pot −1.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- corn competitione0
- Interactor
- Chenopodium albumChenopodium albume0weed
- Outcome
- Chenopodium album biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50%e0
Not reportedComparatorQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chenopodium album biomass was reduced by 46% and 50% under corn competition at 2 and 4 weeds pot −1 (P = 0.0003, 0.0004).”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop competition at 6 and 9 weeds per pot did not reduce C. album biomass.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- crop competitione0
- Interactor
- C. albumChenopodium albume0weed
- Outcome
- C. album biomasse0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Qualifier
- 6 and 9 weeds pot −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, introducing crop competition under 6 and 9 weeds pot −1 did not reduce C. album biomass (P = 0.90, 1.00).”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
At 50% versus 100% VWC corn biomass was 22% lower.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- 50%e0
- Outcome
- corn biomasse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Qualifier
- Averaged across weed pressurese0
- Comparator
- 100% VWCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Averaged across weed pressures, corn biomass was 22% less when grown under 50% compared with 100% VWC (P = 0.0003).”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed density of 2 per pot reduced corn biomass by 22% versus zero weeds.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 2e0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Qualifier
- averaged across VWC valuese0
- Comparator
- 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, averaged across VWC values, increasing weed competition from 0 to 2 (P = 0.04), 4 (P = <0.0001), 6 (P = 0.0002), or 9 (P = 0.0002) weeds pot −1 reduced biomass by 22%, 38%, 35%, and 36%.”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed density of 4 per pot reduced corn biomass by 38% versus zero weeds.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 4e0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 38%e0
- Qualifier
- averaged across VWC valuese0
- Comparator
- 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, averaged across VWC values, increasing weed competition from 0 to 2 (P = 0.04), 4 (P = <0.0001), 6 (P = 0.0002), or 9 (P = 0.0002) weeds pot −1 reduced biomass by 22%, 38%, 35%, and 36%.”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed density of 6 per pot reduced corn biomass by 35% versus zero weeds.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 6e0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Qualifier
- averaged across VWC valuese0
- Comparator
- 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, averaged across VWC values, increasing weed competition from 0 to 2 (P = 0.04), 4 (P = <0.0001), 6 (P = 0.0002), or 9 (P = 0.0002) weeds pot −1 reduced biomass by 22%, 38%, 35%, and 36%.”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed density of 9 per pot reduced corn biomass by 36% versus zero weeds.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- 9e0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Qualifier
- averaged across VWC valuese0
- Comparator
- 0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, averaged across VWC values, increasing weed competition from 0 to 2 (P = 0.04), 4 (P = <0.0001), 6 (P = 0.0002), or 9 (P = 0.0002) weeds pot −1 reduced biomass by 22%, 38%, 35%, and 36%.”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress caused a stronger reduction than rising weed competition without water limitation.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Interactor
- C. albumChenopodium albume0weed
- Outcome
- magnitude of reductione0
- Direction
- strongere0
- Comparator
- increasing weed competitione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, water stress and C. album competition negatively affected the parameters measured in this study; however, the magnitude of reduction is stronger under drought stress than increasing weed competition when water is not limiting.”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend changing integrated weed management to maintain yield under future climate stress.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- modify current integrated weed management programse0
- Qualifier
- under future climate stresse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, field crop growers must modify current integrated weed management programs to maintain yield under future climate stress.”
t0“corn”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays subsp. mays · Chenopodium album · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →competition · Chenopodium album · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.