Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T05:31:58.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the Biology of Wild and Cultivated Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Judith L. Carpenter  and
Herbert J. Hopen
Judith L. Carpenter
Affiliation:
Dep. Hort., Univ. Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Herbert J. Hopen
Affiliation:
Dep. Hort., Univ. Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild and cultivated proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L. ♯ PANMI) showed increased height and dry mass with increasing photoperiod and flowered under all photoperiods. Increasing planting density decreased height and dry mass and slowed seedhead development in both types. Shading increased plant height and decreased dry mass of both millets and increased germination compared to unshaded treatments. Planting date did not affect germination of freshly collected seed of either millet. Wild proso millet seed had a low germination rate until 8 weeks after panicle emergence, and the rate increased to 22% after 10 weeks. Germination of cultivated proso millet seed was low for 5 weeks after panicle emergence and increased to 92% after 10 weeks.

Keywords

Photoperiodcompetitionlight intensityseed maturationPANMI

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , November 1985 , pp. 795 - 799
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Brecke, B. J. and Duke, W. B. 1980. Dormancy, germination, and emergence characteristics of fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) seed. Weed Sci. 28:683–685.Google Scholar
2. Coultas, J. and Behrens, R. 1983. Growth characteristics of wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in Minnesota. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:37.Google Scholar
3. Grabouski, P. H. 1971. Selective control of weeds in proso millet with herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: Wild proso millet. Crops Soils Mag. 31:10–13.Google Scholar
5. Hinze, G. 1972. Millets in Colorado. Colo. State Univ. Exp. Stn. Bull. 553S. 12 pp.Google Scholar
6. Langer, R.H.M. 1972. How grasses grow. In The Institute of Biology's Studies in Biology No. 34. Edward Arnold. London. 60 pp.Google Scholar
7. Lorenz, K. and Dilsaver, W. 1980. Rheological properties and food applications of proso millet flours. Cereal Chem. 57:21–24.Google Scholar
8. Luellen, W. R. 1982. Wild proso millet – Will you recognize it before it is too late? Crops Soils Mag. 34:9–11.Google Scholar
9. Martin, J. H. 1937. Proso, or hog millet. U.S. Dep. Agric. Farmer's Bull. 1162. 13 pp.Google Scholar
10. McNevin, G. R. and Harvey, R. G. 1982. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in processing peas (Pisum sativum) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:365–368.Google Scholar
11. Nanda, K. K. 1958. Effect of photoperiod on stem elongation and lateral bud development in Panicum miliaceum and its correlation with flowering. Phyton 10:7–16.Google Scholar
12. Scholz, H. 1983. Die Unkraut-Hirse (Panicum miliaceum subsp. ruderale) – neue Tatsachen und Befunde. Plant Syst. Evol. 143: 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Senft, D. H. 1978. Proso millet … A forgotten grain. Agric. Res. 26(9): 5.Google Scholar
14. Striegel, W. L. and Boldt, P. F. 1981. Germination and emergence characteristics of wild proso millet. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 36:22.Google Scholar