Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T23:44:30.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Row Spacing and Herbicide Application Timing on Weed Control and Grain Yield in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregg A. Johnson  and
Thomas R. Hoverstad
Gregg A. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics and the Southern Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Waseca, MN 56093
Thomas R. Hoverstad
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics and the Southern Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Waseca, MN 56093
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: johns510@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1997 to 1999 at the University of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center in Waseca to evaluate the (1) effect of corn row spacing on grass and broadleaf weed species density and height, (2) optimal herbicide application timing in narrow- and wide-row systems, and (3) corn grain yield response to row spacing and herbicide application timing. Corn was planted in 51- and 76-cm row spacings. Within each row-spacing treatment, there were five herbicide application timings: a formulated mixture of acetochlor plus atrazine applied preemergence or a formulated mixture of imazethapyr and imazapyr tank-mixed with bromoxynil applied postemergence at 5-, 10-, 20-, or 30-cm giant foxtail plant height. Reducing the row spacing in corn from 76 to 51 cm did not influence early-season weed emergence or growth. Similarly, late-season weed density and growth were not influenced by row spacing except in 1997. But corn grain yield increased when corn was planted in narrow rows compared with wide rows in 2 out of 3 yr when averaged over herbicide application treatments. Herbicide application timing had a significant effect on late-season weed density and grain yield. But there was no interaction between herbicide application timing and row spacing on grain yield. Potential increases in crop competitiveness resulting from narrow-row corn did not appear to affect weed density or growth in this study.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazinebromoxynilimazapyrimazethapyrgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. #3 SETFAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3751IR’Integrated weed managementPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 548 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bullock, D. G., Nielsen, R. L., and Nyquist, W. E. 1988. A growth analysis comparison of corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacing. Crop Sci. 28: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, C. L. 1996. A reintroduction to integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 44: 409–412.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 7: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, J. M. 1970. Relationship among soil moisture stress, plant populations, row spacing, and yield of corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50: 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5: 114–119.Google Scholar
Hallman, A. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. 1999. Cost, average returns, and risk of switching to narrow row corn. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 685–691.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43: 474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Hoverstad, T. R., and Greenwald, R. E. 1998. Integrated weed management using narrow corn row spacing, herbicides, and cultivation. Agron. J. 90: 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordon, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3: 84–91.Google Scholar
Limon-Ortega, A., Mason, S. C., and Martin, A. R. 1998. Production practices improve grain sorghum and pearl millet competitiveness with weeds. Agron. J. 90: 227–232.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological basis for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 468–474.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns on intrarow cultivation and competition between corn and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 865–870.Google Scholar
Olson, R. A. and Sander, D. J. 1988. Corn production. In Sprague, G. F. and Dudley, J. W., eds. Corn and Corn Production. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. pp. 639–686.Google Scholar
Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration, and yield in corn. Agron. J. 81: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. M., Hicks, D. R., Lueschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Warnes, D. D., and Hoverstad, T. R. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern corn belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Influence of corn population and row spacing on corn and velvetleaf yield. Weed Sci. 46: 447–453.Google Scholar