Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T09:23:21.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn Replant Situations: Herbicide Options and the Effect of Replanting into Partial Corn Stands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan M. Terry ,
Tony Dobbels ,
Mark M. Loux ,
Peter R. Thomison  and
William G. Johnson
Ryan M. Terry
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Tony Dobbels
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Peter R. Thomison
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wgj@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inadequate corn stands due to extreme weather conditions may require producers to replant their corn fields. The use of GR corn, however, can result in difficulty in managing replanted corn without experiencing yield loss. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to evaluate the herbicide options for control of GR corn in a corn replant situation and to determine the effect of corn replanted into various initial corn stands on grain yield. Two field studies were conducted to accomplish the objectives. The first experiment was designed to identify the most efficacious herbicide treatment for GR corn removal in a corn replant situation. Clethodim (51 g ai ha−1) applied 6 d prior to replanting, paraquat (700 g ai ha−1) plus metribuzin (160 g ai ha−1) applied at replanting, and glufosinate (450 g ai ha−1) applied at replanting along with a sequential treatment 3 wk later provided 96 to 100% control of the initial corn stand and resulted in the highest yield. If corn from the first planting remains, the interaction between different sized plants can reduce yield of corn. Thus, a second field experiment was conducted to evaluate the influence on grain yield of corn replanted into various initial corn stands. Corn stands of 0, 20,000, 40,000, 60,000, 80,000, and 100,000 plants ha−1 were established and either followed by a corn replant at 80,000 seeds ha−1 or not replanted. Initial stands ≥ 60,000 plants ha−1 did not require a replant to maximize yield. Initial corn stands ≤ 40,000 plants ha−1 required a replant with initial stand control to maximize grain yield. The percent yield contribution from an initial stand of 20,000 plants ha−1 was 20% greater than the same population replanted a few weeks later, which showed the competitive advantage to earlier planting even at the lowest initial corn stand. Because of this competitive advantage, an initial stand must be removed to maximize corn yield in a replant situation.

El establecimiento inadecuado del maíz debido a condiciones climáticas extremas podría hacer que los productores requieran resembrar sus campos de maíz. Sin embargo, el uso de maíz GR puede causar dificultades para manejar el maíz de resiembra sin sufrir pérdidas en rendimiento. Así los objetivos de esta investigación fueron evaluar opciones de herbicidas para el control de maíz GR en una situación de maíz de resiembra y determinar el efecto en el rendimiento de grano del maíz resembrado dentro de diferentes situaciones de maíz establecido previamente. Dos estudios de campo fueron realizados para alcanzar estos objetivos. El primer experimento fue diseñado para identificar el tratamiento de herbicidas más eficaz para eliminar el maíz GR en una situación de maíz de resiembra. Clethodim (51 g ai ha−1) aplicado 6 d antes de resembrar, paraquat (700 g ai ha−1) más metribuzin (160 g ai ha−1) aplicados en la resiembra, y glufosinate (450 g ai ha−1) aplicado en la resiembra seguido de otra aplicación 3 semanas después brindaron 96 a 100% de control del maíz establecido inicialmente y resultaron en los rendimientos más altos. Si plantas de la primera siembra se mantienen establecidas, la interacción entre plantas de diferentes tamaños puede reducir el rendimiento del maíz. Por esto se realizó un segundo experimento de campo para evaluar la influencia sobre el rendimiento en grano del maíz resembrado dentro de diferentes situaciones de maíz establecido previamente. Plantaciones con 0, 20,000, 40,000, 60,000, 80,000 y 100,000 plantas ha−1 fueron establecidas y seguidas ya sea por una resiembra con 80,000 plantas ha−1 o sin resiembra. Plantaciones iniciales con 60,000 plantas ha−1 no requirieron resiembra para maximizar el rendimiento. Plantaciones iniciales con 40,000 plantas ha−1 requirieron una resiembra además de control de la plantación inicial para maximizar el rendimiento en grano. El porcentaje de contribución de la plantación inicial de 20,000 plantas ha−1 fue 20% superior al de la misma población resembrada unas pocas semanas después, lo que mostró la ventaja competitiva de la siembra temprana inclusive a la densidad de siembra inicial más baja. Por esta ventaja competitiva, las plantas establecidas inicialmente deben ser eliminadas para maximizar el rendimiento del maíz de resiembra.

Keywords

Clethodimglufosinatemetribuzinparaquatcorn, Zea mays L.Glyphosate-resistant cornreplant
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 432 - 437
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

Abendroth, L. J., Elmore, R. W., Boyer, M. J., and Marlay, S. K. 2011. Corn growth and development. Ames, IA Iowa State University Extension PMR 1009.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139–147.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2006. Replant Checklist. http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/production/management/planting/replanting.html. Accessed: July 31, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009. Select Max herbicide 2EE product label. Walnut Creek, CA Valent U.S.A. 8 p.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Maxwell, D. J., and Moody, J. L. 2005. Volunteer corn competition in glyphosate and glufosinate-resistant corn. NCWSS Research Report. V.62.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. R., Hicks, D. R., and Wright, D. L. 1990. Guidelines for making corn replanting decisions. West Lafayette, IN Purdue University National Corn Handbook Publication NCH-30. http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Management/NCH.aspx - here is the web address.Google Scholar
Kucharik, C. J. 2006. A multidecadal trend of earlier corn planting in the central USA. Agron. J. 98:1544–1550.Google Scholar
Kumaratilake, A. R. and Preston, C. 2005. Low temperature reduces glufosinate activity and translocation in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci. 53:10–16.Google Scholar
Larson, E. 2009. Grain Crops Update: Corn Replant/Late Planting Suggestions. http://msucares.com/newsletters/grain/2009/april17_2009.pdf. Accessed: June 8, 2011.Google Scholar
Liu, W., Tollenaar, M., Stewart, G., and Deen, W. 2004. Response of corn grain yield to spatial and temporal variability in emergence. Crop Sci. 44:847–854.Google Scholar
Malcolm, S. and Aillery, M. 2009. Growing crops for biofuel has spillover effects. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/PDF/Biofuels.pdf. Accessed: October 26, 2010.Google Scholar
Nafziger, E. D., Carter, P. R., and Graham, E. E. 1991. Response of corn to uneven emergence. Crop Sci. 31:811–815.Google Scholar
Nielsen, R. L. 2002. Estimating yield and dollar returns from corn replanting. http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/pubs/AY264W.pdf. Accessed: July 30, 2009.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Craig, C. C., and Hayes, R. M. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control with glufosinate prior to planting no-till cotton. Weed Technol. 20:1047–1051.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Thompson, M. A., and Hayes, R. M. 2009. Herbicide options for controlling glyphosate-tolerant corn in a corn replant situation. Weed Technol. 23:243–246.Google Scholar
[USDA-ERS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service. 2011. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops. Accessed: September 15, 2011.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agriculture Statistical Service. 2011. Prospective Plantings. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/ProsPlan/ProsPlan03-31-2011.pdf. Accessed: June 8, 2011.Google Scholar