Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-5vsr4 Total loading time: 0.165 Render date: 2021-05-14T10:58:26.286Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Evaluation of Mechanical Weed Management Programs for Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles L. Mohler
Affiliation:
Section of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
James C. Frisch
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Crop, and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Jane Mt. Pleasant
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Crop, and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Abstract

Eight cultivation programs with several equipment combinations were compared with each other and with an atrazine plus pendimethalin herbicide program with and without supplemental cultivation from 1992 to 1994. In two of the three years, cultivation with a rotary hoe or tine weeder reduced weed seedling density by 39 to 74%. Tine weeding was more effective than rotary hoeing in 1992. Rotary hoeing or tine weeding reduced corn populations by an average of 6%. Weed control by different types of inter-row cultivators varied little, except that an in-row cultivator provided better control than a rolling cultivator in two years and better control than a shovel cultivator in one year. Weeds establishing from seeds were better controlled by herbicides in all three years, but weeds establishing from roots, rhizomes, and tubers were controlled as well or better by cultivation. Weed control was sometimes better using herbicides plus cultivation than with herbicides alone, but the combination damaged the crop in two of the three years. Cost of mechanical treatments which combined inter-row cultivation with rotary hoeing or tine weeding differed from that for the herbicide treatment by less than 2%. Yields of the best mechanical treatment and the herbicide treatment were nearly equal in all years, but the best mechanical regime varied between years. Consequently, mean net return was moderately higher for the herbicide treatment.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Armstrong, D. L., Leasure, J. K., and Corbin, M. R. 1968. Economic comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control. Weed Sci. 16:369371.Google Scholar
Baumann, D. T., 1992. Mechanical weed control with spring tine harrows (weed harrows) in row crops. In Ann. IXth Int. Symp. on the Biol. of Weeds, 16–18 09, 1992. Paris. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. pp. 123128.Google Scholar
Bridgemohan, P., and I. Brathwaite, R. A. 1989. Weed management strategies for the control of Rottboellia cochinchinensis in maize in Trinidad. Weed Res. 29:433440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Hoveland, C. S., Brown, V. L., and Wade, R. H. 1975. Weed population shifts influenced by crop rotations and weed control programs. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 28: 6071.Google Scholar
Day, R. W., and Quinn, G. P. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol. Monogr. 59:433463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaze, N. C., and Hall, M. R. 1990. Cultivation and herbicides for weed control in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 4:518523.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L., 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. A., and Wichern, D. W. 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 642 p.Google Scholar
Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of the rotary hoe for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L., 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Appl. 3:5373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohler, C. L., 1996. Ecological bases for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric. In press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A., and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:382389.Google Scholar
Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Strizke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeth, F. W., and Selley, R. 1987. Weed control alternatives and costs. In Sustainable Agriculture: Wise and Profitable Use of our Resources in Nebraska. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska. pp. 179181.Google Scholar
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. 42:593660.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Newsom, 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
Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 593 p.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Westra, P. 1995. Compatibility and efficiency of in-row cultivation for weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:754760.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., 1993. Effect of preplant tillage, post-plant cultivation, and herbicides on weed density in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:728734.Google Scholar

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.

Evaluation of Mechanical Weed Management Programs for 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.

Evaluation of Mechanical Weed Management Programs for 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.

Evaluation of Mechanical Weed Management Programs for Corn (Zea mays)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *