Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T06:26:30.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence and postemergence weed control in sweet corn on organic soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

Alex G. Rodriguez Open the ORCID record for Alex G. Rodriguez [Opens in a new window] ,
Hardev S. Sandhu Open the ORCID record for Hardev S. Sandhu [Opens in a new window] ,
Alan L. Wright  and
D. Calvin Odero Open the ORCID record for D. Calvin Odero [Opens in a new window]
Alex G. Rodriguez
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Wimauma, FL, USA
Hardev S. Sandhu
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Florida, Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL, USA
Alan L. Wright
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Florida, Indian River Research and Education Center, Fort Pierce, FL, USA
D. Calvin Odero*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Florida, Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL, USA
*
Corresponding author: D. Calvin Odero; Email: dcodero@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Atrazine and S-metolachlor are the herbicides most relied on by growers to control weeds in sweet corn crops grown in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in southern Florida. Alternative weed management programs are needed. Field experiments were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the efficacy of 1) pyroxasulfone (183 and 237 g ha−1) alone or as a premix with carfentrazone-ethyl (13 and 17 g ha−1) or fluthiacet-methyl (6 and 7 g ha−1), S-metolachlor (1,790 g ha−1) alone or in combination with atrazine (3,360 g ha−1) applied preemergence(PRE); 2) mesotrione (105 g ha−1), topramezone (25 g ha−1), and tembotrione (92 g ha−1) applied postemergence alone or in combination with atrazine (560 and 2,240 g ha−1) or bentazon (1,120 g ha−1); and 3) mechanical cultivation alone at the fourth and the fourth followed by the sixth leaf stages of sweet corn. PRE-applied herbicides did not provide acceptable control of fall panicum, common lambsquarters, or common purslane probably due to a lack of incorporation into the soil because of limited rainfall. POST-applied topramezone alone or in combination with atrazine or bentazon resulted in effective fall panicum control (>91%). Topramezone alone provided 83% and 88% control of common lambsquarters and common purslane, respectively, whereas atrazine added to topramezone resulted in >94% control of both weed species. Mesotrione and tembotrione plus atrazine provided excellent control (>93%) of both broadleaf weed species but poor fall panicum control (<72%). Mechanical cultivation alone did not effectively control any weeds. Overall, treatments that contained topramezone resulted in greater sweet corn yield. These results show that a combination of topramezone, mesotrione, and tembotrione with atrazine resulted in improved broadleaf weed control. Fall panicum control was improved only with the combination of topramezone with atrazine, showing that atrazine is an important mixture component of these herbicides to provide effective POST weed control in sweet corn on organic soils of the EAA.

Keywords

AtrazinebentazonmesotrionepyroxasulfoneS-metolachlortembotrionetopramezonecommon lambsquartersChenopodium album L. CHEALcommon purslanePortulaca oleracea L. POROLfall panicumPanicum dichotomiflorum Michx. PANDIsweet cornZea mays spp. saccharataGrass controlbroadleaf weed controlmixturesorganic soil
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2023 , pp. 287 - 295
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: David Johnson, Corteva Agriscience

References

Anonymous (2021a) FMC Herbicides. https://ag.fmc.com/us/en/products/herbicides. Accessed: May 18, 2022Google Scholar
Anonymous (2021b) Zidua® SC herbicide product label. https://agriculture.basf.us/crop-protection/products/herbicides/zidua-sc-herbicide.html. Accessed: May 18, 2022Google Scholar
Armel, GR, Wilson, HP, Richardson, RJ, Hines, TE (2003) Mesotrione, acetochlor, and atrazine for weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 17:284–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arslan, ZF, Williams, MM II, Becker, R, Fritz, VA, Peachey, RE, Rabaey, TL (2016) Alternatives to atrazine for weed management in processing sweet corn. Weed Sci 64:531–539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2022) Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package, version 1.1-29. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/. Accessed: May 15, 2022Google Scholar
Bollman, JD, Boerboom, CM, Becker, RL, Fritz, VA (2008) Efficacy and tolerance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in sweet corn. Weed Technol 22:666–674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutsalis, P, Gill, GS, Preston, C (2014) Control of rigid ryegrass in Australian wheat production with pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 28:332–339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD (1991) Early preplant atrazine and metolachlor in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 5:66–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomas, AJ, Kells, JJ (2004) Triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in corn with preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 18:551–554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, JB, Bellinder, RR, Kirkwyland, JJ (1999) Efficacy of mechanical cultivation with and without herbicides in broccoli (Brassica oleracea), snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 13:244–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damalas, CA, Gitsopoulos, TK, Koutroubas, SD, Alexoudis, C, Georgoulas, I (2017) Weed control and selectivity in maize (Zea mays L.) with tembotrione mixtures. Int J Pest Manag 64:11–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, PJ, Kanissery, R, Boyd, NS (2019) Weed management in sweet corn. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, Florida Cooperative Extension. Electronic Data Information Sources HS197Google Scholar
[FAWN] Florida Automated Weather Network (2022) Belle Glade Station. https://fawn.ifas.ufl.edu/. Accessed: May 20, 2022Google Scholar
Fernandez, JV, Odero, DC, MacDonald, GE, Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA, Wilson, PC (2019 ) Field dissipation of S-metolachlor in organic and mineral soils used for sugarcane production in Florida. Weed Technol 34:362–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, PH, Ferguson, JC, Reynolds, DB, Kruger, GR, Irby, JT (2021) Crop residue and rainfall timing effect on pre-emergence herbicides efficacy using different spray nozzle types. Int J Pest Manag 8:1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Witt, WW (2002) Comparison of glyphosate with other herbicides for weed control in corn (Zea mays): efficacy and economics. Weed Technol 16:701–706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geier, PW, Stahlman, PW, Frihauf, JC (2006) KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no-tillage corn. Weed Technol 20:622–626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, WJ, Dotray, PA, Baughman, T (2021) Carfentrazone plus pyroxasulfone combinations for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). J Exp Agric Int 43:52–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwick, JM (2013) Evaluation of pyroxasulfone in corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) weed management programs. Master thesis. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. 87 pGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2022) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. https://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: May 20, 2022Google Scholar
Hothorn, T (2022) multcomp: Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. R package, version 1.4-20. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multcomp/index.html. Accessed: May 15, 2022Google Scholar
Janak, TW, Grichar, WJ (2016) Weed control in corn (Zea mays L.) as influenced by preemergence herbicides. Int J Agron doi.org/10.1155/2016/2607671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Datta, A, Scott, J, Porpiglia, PJ (2009) Dose response curves of KIH-485 for preemergence weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:34–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, CA, Hager, AG, Tranel, PJ, Davis, AS, Martin, NF, Williams, MM II (2021) Future efficacy of pre-emergence herbicides in corn (Zea mays) is threatened by more variable weather. Pest Manag Sci 77:2683–2689 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenth, R (2022) emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package, version 1.7.4-1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/. Accessed: May 16, 2022Google Scholar
Mine, A, Miyakado, M, Matsunaka, S (1975) The mechanism of bentazon selectivity. Pestic Biochem Phys 5:566–574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP1):31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH, Robinson, DE (2011) Weed control and sweet maize (Zea mays L.) yield as affected by pyroxasulfone dose. Crop Prot 30:789–793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, PJ, Harms, CT, Allen, RF (1998) Metolachlor, S-metolachlor and their role within sustainable weed-management. Crop Prot 17:207–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, DC, Wright, AL (2013a) Comparison of pyroxasulfone, S-metolachlor, and mesotrione for weed control in sweet corn. Crop Manag 22:1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, DC, Wright, AL (2013b) Response of sweet corn to pyroxasulfone in high-organic-matter soils. Weed Technol 27:341–346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, BL, Zollinger, RK, Thompson, CR, Peterson, DE, Jenks, B, Moechnig, M, Stahlman, PW (2011) Pyroxasulfone with and without sulfentrazone in sunflower. Weed Technol 25:217–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed: May 15, 2022Google Scholar
Salzman, FP, Renner, KA (1992) Response of soybean to combinations of clomazone, metribuzin, linuron, alachlor, and atrazine. Weed Technol 6:922–929 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueneman, TJ, Sanchez, CA (1994) Vegetable production in the EAA. Pages 238–277 in Bottcher, AB, Izuno, FT, eds. Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA): Water, Soil, Crop, and Environmental Management. Gainesville: University Press of Florida Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, SR, Soltani, N, Sikkema, PH, Robinson, DE (2008) Tolerance of eight sweet corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids to pyroxasulfone. HortScience 43:170–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Kaastra, AC, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2011) Efficacy of topramezone and mesotrione for the control of annual grasses. Int Res J Agric Sci Soil Sci 2:046–050 Google Scholar
Steele, GL, Porpiglia, PJ, Chandler, JM (2005) Efficacy of KIH-485 on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and selected broadleaf weeds in corn. Weed Technol 19:866–869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Blouin, DC, Griffin, JL, Landry, RL, Woolam, BC, Hardwick, JM (2017a) Effect of pyroxasulfone application timing and rate on soybean. Weed Technol 31:202–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Bond, JA, Landry, RL, Edwards, HM (2015) Weed management in corn with postemergence applications of tembotrione or thiencarbazone: tembotrione. Weed Technol 29:350–358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Bond, JA, Griffin, JL, Landry, RL, Woolam, BC, Edwards, HM, Hardwick, JM (2017b) Weed management programs with pyroxasulfone in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 31:496–502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Gulden, RH, Chandler, K (2007) A rationale for atrazine stewardship in corn. Weed Sci 55:75–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanetani, Y, Kaku, K, Kawai, K, Fujioka, T, Shimizu, T (2009) Action mechanism of a novel herbicide, pyroxasulfone. Pestic Biochem Physiol 95:47–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service (1992) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Corn. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/sweet-corn-grades-and-standards. Accessed: September 29, 2022Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2021a) 2020 Vegetable Chemical Use. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Pre-Defined_Queries/2020_Vegetables/index.php. Accessed: September 27, 2022Google Scholar
[USDA NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2021b) 2021 State Agriculture Review Florida. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=FLORIDA. Accessed: April 19, 2022Google Scholar
Westra, EP (2012) Adsorption, leaching, and dissipation of pyroxasulfone and two chloroacetamide herbicides. MSc. thesis. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. 69 pGoogle Scholar
Whaley, CM, Armel, GR, Wilson, HP, Hines, TE (2009) Evaluation of S-metolachlor and S-metolachlor plus atrazine mixtures with mesotrione for broadleaf weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:193–196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemse, C, Soltani, N, David, CH, Jhala, AJ, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2021) Interaction of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) and atrazine alternative photosystem II (PS II) inhibitors for control of multiple herbicide-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) in corn. Weed Sci 69:492–503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM II, Boerboom, CM, Rabaey, TL (2010) Significance of atrazine in sweet corn weed management systems. Weed Technol 24:139–142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM II, Boydston, RA, Peachey, RE, Robinson, D (2011) Significance of atrazine as a tank-mix partner with tembotrione. Weed Technol 25:299–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, AL, Hanlon, EA (2019) Organic matter and soil structure in Everglades Agricultural Area. Electronic Data Information Sources SL301. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, Florida Cooperative ExtensionGoogle Scholar
Yamaji, Y, Honda, H, Hanai, R, Inoue, J (2016) Soil and environmental factors affecting the efficacy of pyroxasulfone for weed control. J Pestic Sci 41:1–5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamaji, Y, Honda, H, Kobayashi, M, Hanai, R, Inoue, J (2014) Weed control efficacy of a novel herbicide, pyroxasulfone. J Pestic Sci 39:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelazny, LW, Carlisle, VW (1974) Physical, chemical, elemental, and oxygen-containing functional group analysis of selected Florida Histosols. Pages 63–78 in Stelly, M, Dinauer, RC, eds. Histosols: Their Characteristics, Classification, and Use. Vol. 6. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America Google Scholar