Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:59:29.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Preplant Application Timing Effects on Acetamide Efficacy in No-Till Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey A. Bunting ,
F. William Simmons  and
Loyd M. Wax
Jeffrey A. Bunting
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
F. William Simmons*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: fsimmons@uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metolachlor, dimethenamid, acetochlor, and a commercial premixture of flufenacet plus metribuzin were applied 60, 45, 30, and 15 d before planting (DBP) and at planting (preemergence [PRE]) at Dekalb and Urbana, IL in 1995 and 1996. The soil types were a Drummer silty clay loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Endoaquoll) with 2.8% organic carbon and a pH of 6.5 at Dekalb and a Flanagan silt loam (Fine, smectitic, mesic Aquic Argiudoll) with 2.0% organic carbon and a pH of 6.2 at Urbana. Herbicide and application timing affected giant foxtail control and densities. Neither herbicide nor application timing affected crop injury or grain yield. Test of the main effects showed that metolachlor and flufenacet plus metribuzin were more effective than acetochlor or dimethenamid in controlling giant foxtail at 30 and 60 d after planting (DAP) and in reducing foxtail density at 60 DAP. Giant foxtail control 60 DAP was greater than 80% for both metolachlor and flufenacet plus metribuzin for all application timings. Dimethenamid and acetochlor applied at 60 and 45 DBP provided less giant foxtail control when compared with metolachlor and flufenacet plus metribuzin applied at the same time. All herbicides provided greater than 90% giant foxtail control at the PRE application timing. Giant foxtail control provided by metolachlor and flufenacet plus metribuzin was insensitive to application timing from 60 DBP to PRE, whereas both dimethenamid and acetochlor efficacy was lowered when applied between 30 and 60 DBP.

Keywords

Acetochlordimethenamidflufenacetmetolachlormetribuzingiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herm. #3 SETFADAP, days after plantingDBP, days before plantingEPP, early preplantPRE, preemergence DAP
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 291 - 296
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

Beestman, G. B. and Deming, J. M. 1974. Dissipation of acetanilide herbicides from soils. Agron. J. 66: 308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4: 279–283.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P., Lavy, T. L., and Barnes, C. J. 1986. The degradation and bioactivity of metolachlor in the soil. Weed Sci. 34: 479–484.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 45: 329–336.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Koskinen, W. C., Schreiber, M. M., and Gan, J. 1994. Dissipation of alachlor, metolachlor and atrazine from starch-encapsulated formulations in a sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 42: 411–417.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Schultz, M. E. 1978. Soil persistence of herbicides for corn, sorghum, and soybeans during the year of application. Weed Sci. 26: 108–115.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81: 665–672.Google Scholar
Dao, T. H. 1991. Field decay of wheat straw and its effects on metribuzin and S-ethyl metribuzin sorption and elution from crop residues. J. Environ. Qual. 20: 203–208.Google Scholar
Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Comparative efficacy of two formulations of alachlor and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 36: 221–226.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47: 578–584.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37: 239–249.Google Scholar
Koppatschek, F. K., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Application timing and corn (Zea mays) residue effects on weed control from metribuzin plus metolachlor. Weed Sci. 37: 345–349.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Young, B. G., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 2000. Application timing determines giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in no-till corn. Weed Technol. 14: 161–166.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Hayes, R. M. 1997. Effect of tillage and soil-applied herbicides on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 698–703.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Shaw, D. R., and Witt, W. W. 1999. Relative dissipation of acetochlor, alachlor, metolachlor, and SAN 582 from three surface soils. Weed Technol. 13: 341–346.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J. V. 1973. Soil organic matter effect on activity of acetanilides, CDAA, and atrazine. Weed Sci. 21: 157–160.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33: 874–881.Google Scholar
Petersen, B. B., Shea, P. J., and Wicks, G. A. 1988. Acetanilide activity and dissipation as influenced by formulation and wheat stubble. Weed Sci. 36: 243–249.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide, Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Kapusta, G., and Roskamp, G. 1984. Early preplant herbicide applications for no-till soybean (Glycine max) weed control. Weed Sci. 32: 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wienhold, B. J. and Gish, T. J. 1992. Effect of water potential, temperature, and soil microbial activity on release of starch-encapsulated atrazine and alachlor. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 382–386.Google Scholar
Wright, T. R., Ogg, A. G., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Dissipation and water activation of UCC-C4243. Weed Sci. 43: 149–155.Google Scholar
Yen, P. Y., Koskinen, W. C., and Schweizer, E. E. 1994. Dissipation of alachlor in four soils as influenced by degradation and sorption processes. Weed Sci. 42: 233–240.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. and Clark, S. K. 1982. Degradation of three acetanilide herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 30: 545–548.Google Scholar