Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:25:14.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economic Return on Investment for Conventional and Herbicide-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott A. Nolte  and
Bryan G. Young
Scott A. Nolte*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and General Agriculture, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4415
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and General Agriculture, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4415
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: snolte@siu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 at Belleville, IL, to compare herbicide efficacy and economic return on investment (EROI) for various herbicide systems in conventional, imidazolinone-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and glyphosate-resistant corn hybrids. Corn injury 14 d after RPA 201772 preemergence (PRE) treatments ranged from 0 to 10%. Treatments with nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron + atrazine injured corn 5 to 24% at 7 d after treatment (DAT); however, no injury was visible at 14 DAT. Corn injury by all herbicide treatments dissipated by 28 DAT. All treatments controlled giant foxtail at least 88%. Common waterhemp was controlled at least 94% with all treatments, except for imazethapyr + imazapyr postemergence (POST), which did not control common waterhemp. All treatments controlled at least 92% of common cocklebur, giant ragweed, and ivyleaf morningglory, with the exception of the total PRE herbicide system of S-metolachlor + atrazine in 2000. Average grain yield ranged from 7,290 to 9,180 kg/ha in 1999, with the yield of the glyphosate-resistant hybrid lower than that of all other hybrids. In 2000, average grain yield ranged from 8,440 to 11,520 kg/ha, with the grain yield of the glyphosate-resistant hybrid greater than that of all other hybrids. There were no differences in economic return in 1999 because of the treatment, the herbicide system, or the hybrid. In 2000 EROI was greater with the glyphosate-resistant hybrid than with the other hybrids. EROI was influenced more by the grain yield of the corn hybrid than by the associated weed control costs. It has been demonstrated by this research that effective and economical weed control can be achieved in all hybrids, with minimal injury.

Keywords

AtrazineimazapyrimazethapyrimidazolinoneglufosinateglyphosatenicosulfuronrimsulfuronS-metolachlorcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis S. # AMATAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. # AMBTRivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEcorn, Zea mays L. # ZEAMX ‘Dekalb 626 RR’, ‘Garst 8342 IT’, ‘Pioneer 33G26’, ‘Pioneer 33G28 LL’Glufosinate-resistant cornglyphosate-resistant cornimidazolinone-resistant cornALS, acetolactate synthaseDAT, days after treatmentEROI, economic return on investmentfb, followed byPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergencePSII, photosystem II
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 371 - 378
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

Bhowmik, P. C., Kushwaha, S., and Mitra, S. 1999. Response of various weed species and corn (Zea mays) to RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13: 504–509.Google 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.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 324–333.Google Scholar
Fischer, D. W., Harvey, R. G., Lauer, J. G., Albright, J. W., and Anthon, T. M. 2000. Weed management systems comparison in field corn with woolly cupgrass. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Res. Rep. 57: 106–109.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1997. SAN 582, alachlor, and metolachlor control triazine-resistant (TR) smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 623–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 13: 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. E., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14: 57–65.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1998. Total postemergence weed control in imidazolinone-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 12: 151–156.Google Scholar
Monks, D. C., Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S., Hatton, J. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1996. Effect of AC 263,222, imazethapyr, and nicosulfuron on weed control and imidazolinone-tolerant corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 10: 822–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, M.D.K., Lux, J. F., Franzenburg, D. D., and Lee, J. M. 2000. Evaluation of preemergence followed by postemergence herbicide combinations for woolly cupgrass control in glufosinate-resistant and imidazolinone-tolerant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 57: 191–193.Google Scholar
Parks, R. J., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Calvin, D. D. 1996. Herbicide susceptibility and biological fitness of triazine-resistant and susceptible common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 44: 517–522.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonlyurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14: 204–211.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. A., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Li, J., and Hellwig, K. B. 2000a. Grain sorghum screening. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Res. Rep. 57: 67–68.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. A., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Li, J., and Hellwig, K. B. 2000b. Glufosinate, glyphosate and imazethapyr and imazapyr resistant corn programs. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Res. Rep. 57: 194–196.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Enhancing the margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in Zea mays with antidotes. Weed Sci. 47: 492–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 11: 241–247.Google Scholar
Volenberg, D. S., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Solanum ptycanthum resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 48: 399–401.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., Li, J., Hellwig, K. B., and Schmidt, A. A. 2000. Atrazine and S-metolachlor in glyphosate resistant corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 57: 176–178.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Hart, S. E., and Simmons, F. W. 1999. Preemergence weed control in conventional-till corn (Zea mays) with RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13: 471–477.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. and Young, J. M. 2000. Evaluation of AE F130360. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Res. Rep. 57: 140–141.Google Scholar