Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-hcvhd Total loading time: 0.25 Render date: 2021-04-17T21:57:03.316Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Compatibility and Efficiency of In-Row Cultivation for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Water Manage. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Donald W. Lybecker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. and Res. Econ., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Phil Westra
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523

Abstract

Information on the effects of multiple weed management tactics in corn is needed to develop integrated weed management systems. The effectiveness and compatibility of an in-row cultivator as compared to a standard interrow cultivator used with reduced rates of a soil-applied herbicide, rotary hoeing, and/or a bioeconomic model for POST herbicide selection was examined. Weed control with a single rotary hoeing at corn emergence controlled annual weeds similarly to two rotary hoeings. One-third recommended use rate of alachlor controlled weeds similarly to a two-thirds rate. Reduced rates of alachlor controlled more weeds than rotary hoeing over 2 yr. The in-row cultivator required early-season weed control (rotary hoeing or reduced alachlor rate) for optimum efficacy. The in-row cultivator provided better weed control than the standard cultivator while the cost of operating the two cultivators was similar. Thus, the in-row cultivator was more efficient than the standard cultivator. Furthermore, less intensive early-season weed control was required with the in-row cultivator for maximum weed control as compared to the standard cultivator. Rotary hoeing plus the in-row cultivator provided similar weed control to other weed management tactics that required both soil-applied and POST herbicides. Gross margin was influenced more by corn yield than cost of weed management tactics.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.

References

1. Buchholtz, K. P. and Doersch, R. E. 1968. Cultivation and herbicides for weed control in corn. Weed Sci. 16:232234.Google Scholar
2. Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. A. 1994. Interrow cultivation to reduce herbicide use in corn following alfalfa without tillage. Agron. J. 86:6672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybeans. Agron. J. 84:973978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dalsted, N. L., Gutierrez, P. H., Schaubert, D. L., Sharp, R. L., and Holman, K. L. 1990. Selected 1988–1989 Crop Enterprise Budgets for Colorado. DARE Information Report Number IR:90–151. Dep. Agric. and Nat. Res. Econ., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. 181 p.Google Scholar
5. DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365374.Google Scholar
6. Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:972979.Google Scholar
8. Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of rotary hoeing for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39:124129.Google Scholar
10. Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Westra, P. 1991. Computer aided decisions for weed management in corn. Proc. West. Agric. Econ. Assoc., Portland, OR. p. 234239.Google Scholar
11. Mt. Pleasant, J., Burt, R. F., and Frisch, J. C. 1994. Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:217223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:382389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Peters, E. J., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Peters, E. J., Davis, F. S., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1961. Interrelations of cultivations, herbicides, and methods of application for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 9:639645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Schweizer, E. E., Westra, P., and Lybecker, D. W. 1994. Controlling weeds in corn (Zea mays) rows with an in-row cultivator versus decisions made by a computer model. Weed Sci. 42: 593600.Google Scholar
16. Shaw, D. R., Newson, L. J., and Smith, C. A. 1991. Influence of cultivation timing on chemical control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:6772.Google Scholar
17. Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agric. Systems 44:313335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: Decision models of postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th June 2017 - 17th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Compatibility and Efficiency of In-Row Cultivation for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Compatibility and Efficiency of In-Row Cultivation for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Compatibility and Efficiency of In-Row Cultivation for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *