Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T03:37:38.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management and Economic Returns in No-Tillage Herbicide-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kaleb B. Hellwig ,
William G. Johnson  and
Raymond E. Massey
Kaleb B. Hellwig
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Raymond E. Massey
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: johnsonwg@missouri.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate corn vigor reduction, weed control, corn yield, and economic returns in a no-till system with various herbicide strategies using full and reduced rates of acetochlor and atrazine with glyphosate, glufosinate, or imazethapyr + imazapyr in their respective type of herbicide-resistant, no-tillage corn. Crop vigor reduction due to herbicide injury was 10% or less with all treatments. A burndown plus a full label rate of a residual herbicide applied early preplant (EPP) generally provided less than 80% control of giant foxtail, common waterhemp, and common cocklebur but usually greater than 85% control of common ragweed and common lambsquarters. Two-pass strategies generally provided greater than 85% control of all species evaluated. Early postemergence, mid-postemergence (MPOST), and late postemergence strategies generally provided inconsistent and poor overall weed control. EPP–MPOST strategies generally provided lower weed control than strategies using acetochlor or atrazine EPP followed by a postemergence application. Corn yield and net economic returns followed a similar trend as weed control, with strategies that provided greater than 80% weed control showing minimal crop vigor reduction and high grain yields. Two-pass strategies with residual herbicides generally provided the highest yields, economic returns, and low coefficients of variation (CV) of net income. Although EPP strategies provided similar economic returns as some of the two-pass strategies, they had higher CVs, implying greater risk to economic return.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazineglufosinateglyphosateimazapyrimazethapyrcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer. # AMATAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb 626’, ‘Pioneer 3395’, ‘Pioneer 34T14’Application strategiesapplication timingtank mixesac/at+, acetochlor EPP followed by atrazine plusALS, acetolactate synthaseCEC, cation-exchange capacityCV, coefficients of variationEPOST, early postemergenceEPP, early preplantMPOST, mid-postemergenceLPOST, late postemergenceOM, organic matter
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 239 - 248
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

Allen, J. R. 1999. Management, Distribution, and Interference of ALS-Resistant Common Sunflower in Missouri Soybean. . University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. pp. 461–466.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Baumgartner, J. R., Peterson, D. E., and Currie, R. S. 1998. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annus). Weed Sci. 46: 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2000a. Conservation Technology Information Center National Crop Residue Management Survey. Executive Summary, Conservation Technology Information Center, W. Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000b. Missouri Farm Facts. Missouri Department of Agriculture, Jefferson City, MO; United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baker, C. J., Saxton, K. E., and Richie, W. R. 1996. No-tillage Seeding Science and Practice. Cambridge: University Press. pp. 1–203.Google Scholar
Blanchard, P. E. and Donald, W. W. 1997. Herbicide contamination of groundwater beneath claypan soils in north-central Missouri. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1612–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Holman, C. S., and Niekamp, J. W. 1997a. Weed management in glufosinate tolerant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 156–157.Google Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Holman, C. S., and Niekamp, J. W. 1997b. Weed management in glyphosate tolerant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 146–147.Google Scholar
Carey, B. A. 1990. Herbicide Application Timing in No-till Soybean. . University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 94 p.Google Scholar
Coffman, C. A. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5: 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirks, J. T., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Holman, C. S., Bradley, P. R., and Allen, J. A. 1998. Weed control programs in glyphosate tolerant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55: 158–159.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W., Hjelmfelt, A. T. Jr., and Alberts, E. E. 1998. Herbicide distribution and variability across Goodwater creek watershed in north central Missouri. J. Environ. Qual. 27: 999–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46: 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, D. L., Dietrich, A. M., Reay, W. G., Hayes, M. C., and Simmons, G. M. Jr. 1996. Ground water discharge of agricultural pesticides and nutrients to estuarine surface water. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. G. 2001. Herbicide resistant corn: survey results from 1998 and 2000. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 57: 70.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
Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., and Holman, C. S. 1998. Weed control programs with imazethapyr + imazapyr in corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55: 184–185.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Holman, C. S., Niekamp, J. W., and Bradley, P. R. 1997. Weed control programs in IT corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 126–127.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1998. Total postemergence weed control in imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12: 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistant and susceptible corn (Zea mays) response to imazethapyr, imazaquin, chlorimuron, and CGA-152005. Weed Technol. 11: 810–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. D., Martin, A. R., Roeth, F. W., Johnson, B. E., and Lee, D. J. 1999. Comparison of ALS inhibitor resistance and allelic interactions in shattercane accessions. Weed Sci. 47: 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschoff, J. R., Wax, L. M., and Maxwell, D. J. 1998. RPA3201772 and glufosinate combinations for weed control in glufosinate resistant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55: 148–149.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A. Jr. and Kendig, J. A. 1999. Inheritance of an ALS-cross-resistant common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) biotype. Weed Technol. 13: 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. G. 1994. Combined analysis of several experiments. In Peterson, R. G., ed. Agricultural Field Experiments, Design and Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 205–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stroller, E. W., and Hart, S. E. 1997. Preemergence broadleaf weed control and crop tolerance in imidazolinone resistant and susceptible corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, T. R. and Penner, D. 1998. Corn (Zea mays) acetolactate synthase sensitivity of four classes of ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 46: 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Fitterer, S. A. 1997. Weed control in IMI tolerant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 132–133.Google Scholar