Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:56:48.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn as Affected by Preemergence Herbicide and Timing of Postemergence Herbicide Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert G. Parker ,
Alan C. York  and
David L. Jordan
Robert G. Parker*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27965-7620
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27965-7620
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27965-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: robbie_parker@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at three locations during both 2002 and 2003 to evaluate weed control and response of glyphosate-resistant (GR) corn to glyphosate or nicosulfuron plus atrazine applied POST at three application timings with and without alachlor plus atrazine applied PRE. The POST herbicides were applied timely (5- to 9-cm weeds) or applications were delayed 1 or 2 wk. All treatments, except the weedy check, were followed by glyphosate postemergence-directed (PDIR) 4 wk after the timely POST application. Common lambsquarters, common ragweed, Palmer amaranth, prickly sida, and smooth pigweed were controlled at least 94% regardless of PRE or POST treatments. Large crabgrass and fall panicum were controlled at least 96% by glyphosate regardless of PRE herbicide or POST application timing. In contrast, control by nicosulfuron plus atrazine POST in the absence of PRE herbicide decreased as application was delayed. Sicklepod was controlled at least 94% when POST herbicides were applied timely, but control by both POST herbicide treatments decreased with delayed application regardless of PRE herbicide. Tall morningglory was controlled 93% or greater by POST herbicides applied timely. Control by both POST herbicide treatments decreased as application was delayed, with glyphosate being affected more by timing than nicosulfuron plus atrazine. Corn grain yield was similar with glyphosate and nicosulfuron plus atrazine. Yield was unaffected by POST application timing when PRE herbicides were included. Without PRE herbicide, grain yield decreased as POST herbicide application was delayed.

Keywords

Alachloratrazineglyphosatenicosulfuroncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L) Scop. # DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin & Barneby # CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb (DKC) 687 RR’, ‘Dekalb (DKC) 69-71 RR’Crop vigorherbicide-resistant cropsalachloratrazinenicosulfuronGR, glyphosate-resistantPDIR, postemergence-directedWAP, weeks after postemergence herbicide applicationWAPD, weeks after postemergence-directed herbicide application
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 564 - 570
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

Anonymous. 2005. Lariat herbicide label. Monsanto Ag Products Co. Web page: http://www.cdms.net. Accessed September 7, 2005.Google Scholar
Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1994. Soil insecticide and placement influence corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 8:598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. Z., Eiden, C., and Lorber, M. N. 1986. Monitoring ground water for pesticides. in Garner, R. C. and Higg, H. N., eds. Evaluation of Pesticides in Ground Water. Symposium Series 315. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Pp. 170–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. in Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 252–263.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Toxicology and environmental properties of glyphosate. in Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Monogr. 189. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Pp. 103–137.Google Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., Harrison, S. K., Sprankle, P. L., Probst, N. J., Bauman, T. T., Bugg, W., Curran, W. S., Currie, R. S., Harvey, R. G., Johnson, W. G., Kells, J. J., Owen, M. D. K., Regehr, D. L., Slack, C. H., Spaur, M., Sprague, C. L., Vangessal, M., and Young, B. G. 2003. Effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Technol. 17:821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, L. R., Graham, J. A., Whitmore, R. W., Alexander, W. J., Pratt, R. W., Liddle, S. K., and Piper, L. L. 1992. Results of the national alachlor well water survey. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:935–943.CrossRefGoogle 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
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1992. Interaction of terbufos and nicosulfuron on corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:999–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G., Krausz, R. F., Kahn, M., and Matthews, J. L. 1995. The effect of nicosulfuron rate, adjuvent, and weed size on annual weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, J. M., Barry, G. F., and Kishore, G. M. 1989. The herbicide glyphosate. Biofactors 2:17–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Massiga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., Buehler, R. E., Deaton, W. R., Schulur, W. R., Armstrong, T. A., Taylor, M. L., Ebert, C. C., Rogan, G. J., Padgette, S. R., and Fuchs, R. L. 1996. Glyphosate-resistant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1960–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R. G., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2005. Comparison of glyphosate products in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 19:796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siehl, D. L. 1997. Inhibition of EPSP synthase, glutamine synthetase and histidine synthesis. in Roe, R. M., ed., Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. Pp. 37–67.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Clements, D. R., and Booth, B. D. 2002. Evaluation of alternative weed management systems in a modified no-tillage corn-soybean-winter wheat rotation: weed densities, crop yields, and economics. Weed Sci. 50:504–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Kapusta, G., Loux, M. M., Lueschen, W. E., Owen, M. D., Hageman, L. H., and Strachan, S. D. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci. 45:138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13:807–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Garrett, K. A., and Westra, P. 1995. Influence of weed density and distribution on corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Sci. 43:215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas, R. and Wright, S. 2005. Principals of weed resistance management. in Richter, D. A., ed. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. Pp. 3157. Web page: http://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005/pdfs/402.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2005.Google Scholar
Wade, H. F., York, A. C., Morey, A. E., Padmore, J. M., and Rudo, K. M. 1998. The impact of pesticide use of groundwater in North Carolina. J. Environ. Qual. 27:1018–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. Agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 2005. Chemical weed control in field crops. in North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC.: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University Publ. AG-1. Pp. 332–360.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Weed management in cotton. in Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2004 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 74–114.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar