Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:49:28.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of aldicarb, benomyl, dazomet, permethrin, pirimicarb, phorate and nitrogen fertilizer on maize (Zea mays) grown for 14 consecutive years on the same site

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Barnard ,
J. McEwen ,
D. Hornby  and
J. Beane
A. J. Barnard
Affiliation:
AFRC, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ
J. McEwen
Affiliation:
AFRC, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ
D. Hornby
Affiliation:
AFRC, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ
J. Beane
Affiliation:
AFRC, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Maize was grown on the same Clay-with-Flints site at Rothamsted for 14 years (1974–87) in an experiment which tested cumulatively all combinations of three rates of N fertilizer (50, 100 and 150 kg N/ha) and six agrochemical treatments (aldicarb, benomyl, dazomet, phorate, benomyl + dazomet + phorate and none). Permethrin and pirimicarb were also tested in 3 of the years. The crop was grown for forage from 1975 to 1987 and for grain from 1974 to 1976. With 150 kg N/ha, the average forage yield was 10·5 t dry matter/ha and there was no overall decline during the experiment; annual yields ranged from 5·9 to 14·5 t/ha. From 1975 to 1983, yields were on average 0·2 t/ha less with 100 kg N/ha and 1·0 t/ha less with only 50 kg N/ha than with 150 kg N/ha. The crop grown for grain in 1974 failed but in 1975 it gave 3·5, 3·6 and 3·8 t/ha with 50, 100 and 150 kg N/ha, respectively, and 3·3 t/ha in 1976 with all N rates. The cultivars grown, Cargill Primeur 170, Caldera 535 and Fronica, matured too late to ensure a grain harvest at Rothamsted.

Pests observed on the crop included nematodes of the genera Pratylenchus, Tylenchorhynchus and Tylenchus/Ditylenchus and initially some Heterodera avenae, the aphids Metopolophium dirhodum and Sitobion avenae, and frit fly (Oscinella frit). Common smut (Ustilago maydis) was the only fungus disease recorded and Microdochium bolleyi, possibly a minor pathogen, occurred on roots. There was no overall increase in the incidence of pests and pathogens during the experiment. Agrochemical treatments increased yields in all years; the most effective was the combined treatment with benomyl + dazomet + phorate which gave on average 1·4 t/ha more forage than the untreated crop with the largest N rate.

Forage yields were generally larger with sowing in early May rather than later and maturity was earlier in years with the most accumulated day-degrees.

Type
Review
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , June 1989 , pp. 339 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Anon. (1984). Frit Fly. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food leaflet 110.Google Scholar
Barnard, A. J. & Hornby, D. (1982). The effects of dazomet and nitrogen fertilizer on successive crops of maize (Zea mays L.) grown for either grain or forage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, G. J., Van der Hoeven, E. P., Lamers, J. G. & Schoonen, M. P. M. (1983). Effect of benomyl on soil fungi associated with rye. 2. Effect on fungi on culm bases and roots. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 89, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. & Hough, M. N. (1978). The influence of climate on maize production in north-western Europe. In Forage Maize Production and Utilisation (ed. Bunting, E. S.), pp. 15–55. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Caubel, G. (1973). Problèmes nématologiques du maïs en France: connaissances actuelles, possibilités d'intervention. Phytiatrie-Phytopharmacie 22, 39–48.Google Scholar
Chabrol, M., Powlson, D. S. & Hornby, D. (1988). Uptake by maize (Zea mays L.) of nitrogen from 15N-labelled dazomet, 15N-labelled fertilizer and from the soil microbial biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 20, 517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R. J. (1978). Diseases and pests of maize. In Forage Maize Production and Utilisation (ed. Bunting, E. S.), pp. 117–132. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1967). The Control of Soil Fertility. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son, 526 pp.Google Scholar
Corbett, D. C. M. & Webb, R. M. (1975). Root-lesion nematodes. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1974, part 1, p. 182.Google Scholar
Dolmans, N. G. M. & Bunt, J. A. (1980). Control of plant parasitic nematodes in maize by different seed treatments with oxamyl. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit, Gent 45, 733–737.Google Scholar
Dyke, G. V., George, B. J., Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R. & Todd, A. D. (1983). The Broadbalk Wheat Experiment 1968–78: yields and plant nutrients in crops grown continuously and in rotation. Rothamsted Report for 1982, Part 2, 5–44.Google Scholar
Ebbels, D. L. (1968). The effects of soil sterilants on agricultural crops. Ph. D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. H. (1895). Agricultural investigations at Rothamsted, England. United States Department of Agriciulture, Bulletin No. 22. 1–171.Google Scholar
Hornby, D. (1979). Take-all decline: a theorist's paradise. In Soil-borne Plant Pathogens (ed. Schippers, B. and Gams, W.), pp. 133–156. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hornby, D., Plumb, R. T., Bardner, R., Barnard, A. J. & Webb, R. M. (1976). Health of forage maize at ARS Institutes in south-east England. Rothamsted Report for 1975, Part I, 260–261.Google Scholar
Hough, M. (1970). Accumulated temperatures above 10 °C in relation to maize. Meteorological Office Agricultural Memorandum, no. 346.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, D. S. & Powlson, D. S. (1970). Residual effects of soil fumigation on soil respiration and mineralization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 2, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimber, D. S. & Kightley, S. P. J. (1983). Forage maize recommended list considerations. Journal of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany 16, 375–380.Google Scholar
Lucke, E. & Saefkow, M. (1978). Untersuchungen über Befall und Zystenbildung durch das Getreidezystenalchen am Mais. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheilen und Pflanzenschutz 85, 385–392.Google Scholar
Maasen, H. (1976). Schaden an Mais durch Pratylenchus neglectus. Gesunde Pflanzen 28, 42–44.Google Scholar
Maasen, H. (1977). Untersuchung über die Ein- und der Auswanderung von Nematoden der Gattung Pratylenchus in Maiswurzein im Hinblick auf die Entnahme von Boden- oder Wurzelproben. Gesunde Pflanzen 29, 203–205.Google Scholar
McEwen, J., Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R. & Yeoman, D. P. (1984). Rothamsted Garden Clover–red clover grown continuously since 1854. Yields, crop and soil analyses 1956–1982. Rothamsted Report for 1983, Part 2, 225–237.Google Scholar
Pearson, M. N. & Robb, S. M. (1984). The occurrence and effects of barley yellow dwarf virus in maize in SW England. Plant Pathology 33, 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothamsted Experimental Station (1974–1987). Control of pathogens. Yields of the Field Experiments, 1974–87/R/CS/133.Google Scholar
Scholte, K. & s'Jacob, J. J. (1983). The influence of continuous cropping and free living root lesion nematodes on yields of fodder maize. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 89, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldrick, R. D. (1979). Integration of maize in the cropping programme. Maize: Journal of the Maize Development Association, No. 14, 9–11.Google Scholar
Sheldrick, R. D. & Wilkinson, J. M. (1980). Recent developments in the production and utilization of forage maize. ADAS Quarterly Review No. 37, 95–110.Google Scholar
Southey, J. F. (Ed.) (1986). Laboratory Methods for Work with Plant and Soil Nematodes. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Reference Book 402. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Stemerding, S. (1964). Een mixer-wattenfilter methode am vrijbeweeglijke endoparasitaire nematoden uit wortels te verzamelen. Verslagen en Mededelingen, Plantenziektenkundige Dienst 141, 170–175.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. & French, R. A. (1980). Rothamsted insect survey. Rothamsted Report for 1979, Part 2, 111–137.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R., Woiwod, I. P., Macaulay, E. D. M., Dupuch, M. J. & Nicklen, J. (1985). Rothamsted insect survey. Rothamsted Report for 1984, Part 2, 285–315.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. G. & Hemming, J. R. (1965). A comparison of some quantitative methods of extracting small vermiform nematodes from soil. Annals of Applied Biology 55, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. D. & Beane, J. (1984). Effects of aldicarb and benomyl on nematodes, vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizas and the growth and yield of forage maize. Annals of Applied Biology 105, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woiwod, I. P., Tatchell, G. M., Dupuch, M. J., Macaulay, E. D. M., Parker, S. J. & Taylor, M. S. (1986). Rothamsted Report for 1985, Part 2, 253–283.Google Scholar