Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:27:50.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controlling Weeds in Corn (Zea mays) Rows with an In-Row Cultivator Versus Decisions Made by a Computer Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Edward E. Schweizer ,
Philip Westra  and
Donald W. Lybecker
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Water Manage. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 80523
Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Water Manage. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 80523
Donald W. Lybecker
Affiliation:
Water Manage. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 3-yr field study was conducted to compare an in-row cultivator versus a standard row-crop cultivator to decisions made with WEEDCAM, a weed/corn management computer decision aid, for controlling annual weeds within the row in irrigated corn. In the absence of herbicides, weeds were always controlled better with the in-row cultivator than with the standard row-crop cultivator. However, grain yield and gross margin were affected only in 1991 when weeds emerged simultaneously with corn, and rain delayed the first cultivation 10 d. The in-row cultivator plots not only averaged 34% more grain ha-1 than the standard row-crop cultivator plots, but gross margin was $143 ha-1 more. Weed densities each year were about 95% less in plots managed in accordance with the computer model WEEDCAM simulations than in the non-herbicide treated post-planting tillage plots. Grain yields and gross margins were not affected by weed seedbank density, pre-cultivation tillage, or type of cultivator when weed management decisions were based on WEEDCAM simulation ranking. In the absence of herbicides, weeds can be controlled successfully in corn with an in-row cultivator, but success will depend on such factors as weed seedbank density, cultivation timeliness, and relative time of weed and corn emergence.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3779.’Weed management modelflexible harrowrotary hoerow-crop cultivatortillageherbicidesWEEDCAM
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 593 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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

1. Anonymous. 1990. Summary. Pages 3–20 in Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches to Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-418, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1992. Pesticides. Pages 13–20 in Agricultural Resources: Situation and Outlook Report, AR-25. U.S. Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs. Agron. J. 84:973–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dalsted, N. L., Gutierrez, P. H., Schaubert, D. L., Sharp, R. L., and Holman, K. L. 1990. Selected 1988–1989 crop enterprise budgets for Colorado. DARE Information Report Number IR:90–91. Dep. Agric. and Nat. Res. Econ., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. 181 pp.Google Scholar
5. Forcella, F., Eradat-Oskoui, K., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Application of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecol. Appl. 3:74–83.Google Scholar
6. Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114–119.Google Scholar
7. Holden, P. W. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 124 pp.Google Scholar
8. King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:972–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Weed management: A need to develop ecological approaches. Ecol. Appl. 3:39–41.Google Scholar
10. Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39:124–129.Google Scholar
11. Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Westra, P. 1991. Computer aided decisions for weed management in corn. Proc. West. Agric. Econ. Assoc., Portland, OR. p. 234–239.Google Scholar
12. Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:382–389.Google Scholar
13. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.Google Scholar
14. Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1992. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Staff Paper 92–44, Dep. Agric. Econ., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI. 42 pp.Google Scholar
15. Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: Decision models of postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413–417.Google Scholar