Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:50:12.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Application Program and Timing in Herbicide-Resistant Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Laura E. Lindsey ,
Wesley J. Everman ,
Andrew J. Chomas  and
James J. Kells
Laura E. Lindsey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Andrew J. Chomas
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kells@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 2007 to 2009 in East Lansing, MI to evaluate three residual herbicide programs, three POST herbicide application timings, and two POST herbicides in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant corn. Herbicide programs included a residual PRE-applied herbicide followed by (fb) POST application (residual fb POST), a residual herbicide tank-mixed with a POST herbicide (residual + POST), and a nonresidual POST. Three POST herbicide application timings included early POST (EP), mid-POST (MP), and late POST (LP) at an average corn growth stage of V3/V4, V4/V5, and V5/V6, respectively. The two POST herbicides evaluated were glyphosate and glufosinate. Control of common lambsquarters and giant foxtail was evaluated 28 d after the LP application. Glyphosate often provided greater weed control than glufosinate. The LP application resulted in greater giant foxtail control compared with the EP application timing, which may be attributed to control of late-emerging weeds. The EP application timing improved common lambsquarters control compared with the LP application timing. The residual + POST program resulted in greater weed control compared with the residual fb POST program in all years. The effect of residual herbicide program, POST herbicide, and POST application timing on corn grain yield varied by year. In 2007, the use of glyphosate resulted in higher grain yield compared with glufosinate. In 2008, corn grain yield was the highest in the PRE fb POST program and with POST applications at EP and MP. To provide the most consistent weed control and minimize the likelihood of grain yield reductions, a PRE fb POST program applied at EP or MP is recommended.

En East Lansing, MI, se realizaron estudios de campo desde 2007 a 2009 para evaluar tres programas de herbicidas residuales, tres momentos de aplicación de herbicidas POST y dos herbicidas POST en maíz resistente a glyphosate y a glufosinate. Los programas de herbicidas incluyeron un herbicida residual aplicado PRE seguido de (fb) una aplicación POST (residual fb POST), y una aplicación no residual POST. Los tres momentos de aplicación POST incluyeron POST temprano (EP), POST medio (MP) y POST tardío (LP) a un estado de desarrollo promedio del maíz de V3/V4, V4/V5 y V5/V6, respectivamente. Los dos herbicidas POST evaluados fueron glyphosate y glufosinate. El control de Chenopodium album y Setaria faberi fue evaluado 28 d después de la aplicación LP. Glyphosate frecuentemente brindó mayor control de malezas que glufosinate. La aplicación LP resultó en mayor control de S. faberi comparada a la aplicación EP, lo cual podría ser atribuido al control de malezas de emergencia tardía. La aplicación EP mejoró el control de C. album comparada con la aplicación LP. El programa residual + POST resultó en mayor control de malezas comparado con el programa residual fb POST en todos los años. El efecto del programa residual de herbicidas, de herbicidas POST y del momento de aplicación en el rendimiento de grano del maíz varió según el año. En 2007, el uso de glyphosate resultó en un mayor rendimiento de grano comparado con glufosinate. En 2008, el mayor rendimiento de grano del maíz se obtuvo en el programa PRE fb POST y con aplicaciones POST EP y MP. Para brindar un control de malezas más consistente y minimizar la probabilidad de reducciones en rendimiento de grano, se recomienda el programa PRE fb POST aplicado a EP o MP.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazineglufosinateglyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrmcorn, Zea mays L.Grain yieldpostemergencepreemergenceresidual herbicide
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 617 - 621
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

Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 14 :495–501.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9 :356–361.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18 :443–453.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13 :324–333.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14 :77–88.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Bernards, M. L., and Kells, J. J. 2006. Effect of weed removal and row spacing on soil moisture in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 20 :399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18 :165–176.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving corn competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43 :491–497.Google Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2002. Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16 :488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., Harrison, S. K., Sprankle, P. L., Probst, N. J., Bauman, T. T., Bugg, W., Curran, W. S., Currie, R. S., Harvey, R. G., Johnson, W. G., Kells, J. J., Owen, M. D. K., Regehr, D. L., Slack, C. H., Spaur, M., Sprague, C. L., VanGessel, M., and Young, B. G. 2003. Effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Technol. 17 :821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40 :441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Knezevic, S. Z., Chandler, K., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F. J., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14 :578–585.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14 :57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17 :281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42 :568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10 :957–962.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Evans, S. P., Shapiro, C. A., and Knezevic, S. Z. 2010. Effect of nitrogen addition and weed interference on soil nitrogen and corn nitrogen nutrition. Weed Technol. 24 :50–58.Google Scholar
Moechnig, M. J., Boerboom, C. M., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Growth interactions in communities of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), and corn. Weed Sci. 51 :363–370.Google Scholar
Myers, M. W., Curran, W. S., VanGessel, M. J., Majek, B. A., Scott, B. A., Mortensen, D. A., Calvin, D. D., Karsten, H. D., and Roth, G. W. 2005. The effect of weed density and application timing on weed control and corn grain yield. Weed Technol. 19 :102–107.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010. Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 50 :218–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. 2001. Weed management systems utilizing glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15 :89–94.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2003. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC : SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Schultz, B. B. 1985. Levene's test for relative variation. Syst. Zool. 34 :449–456.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Rajcan, I., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. An integrated weed management strategy for glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15 :517–522.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1997b. Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci. 45 :378–381.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997a. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11 :484–488.Google Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Kapusta, G., Loux, M. M., Lueschen, W. E., Owen, M. D. K., Hageman, L. H., and Strachan, S. D. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci. 45 :138–143.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16 :274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 13 :542–547.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47 :213–216.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). 15 :122–128.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Yonts, C. D., and Smith, J. A. 2002. Influence of glyphosate and glufosinate on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield in herbicide-tolerant sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 16 :66–73.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32 :226–234.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. The effect of competition duration. Pages 109–130 in Weed–Crop Competition. Ames, IA : Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Zuver, K. A., Bernards, M. L., Kells, J. J., Sprague, C. L., Medlin, C. R., and Loux, M. M. 2006. Evaluation of postemergence weed control strategies in herbicide-resistant isolines of corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 20 :172–178.Google Scholar