Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:14:53.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zone herbicide application controls annual weeds and reduces residual herbicide use in corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald ,
David Archer ,
William G. Johnson  and
Kelly Nelson
David Archer
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN 47907
Kelly Nelson
Affiliation:
Greenley Research Center, University of Missouri, P.O. Box 126, Novelty, MO 63460
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To minimize the chance of surface water contamination by herbicides, farmers need alternative ways to manage weeds in field crops, such as field corn, that reduce herbicide use. Zone herbicide application (ZHA) reduces herbicide use compared with conventional broadcast herbicide application by (1) banding low herbicide rates between corn rows (≤ 1× normal broadcast registered rate), (2) managing crops to favor crop competition, and (3) banding very low herbicide rates over crop rows (≪ 1× normal rate). The research goal was to compare the relative effectiveness of reduced-rate ZHA with broadcast herbicide application on in-row (IR) and between-row (BR) summer annual weed cover (chiefly giant foxtail and waterhemp species), grain yields, and net returns resulting from herbicide application in field corn. Preemergence ZHA of atrazine + metolachlor + clopyralid + flumesulam was made in zones (i.e., even width bands) at different rates between and over crop rows for three site-years in Missouri, and the 1× rate was 2.24 + 1.75 + 0.211 + 0.067 kg ai ha−1, respectively. Best ZHA treatments (0.29× to 0.30× IR herbicide rates + 0.74× to 0.80× BR herbicide rates) outperformed all reduced-rate broadcast herbicide treatments (0.25×, 0.5×, and 0.75×) based on net returns in partial budget analysis. Yields for highest yielding ZHA could not be distinguished from the 1× broadcast treatments in two of three site-years. Net returns due to herbicide application for the highest yielding ZHA were comparable with the 1× broadcast treatment in all three site-years. For the best ZHA, the 3-yr average for total herbicide applied per unit was 53% of the 1× broadcast rate. ZHA may provide row crop farmers with a new generic option for reducing herbicide rates and input costs while maintaining net returns and reducing the chance of surface water contamination by herbicides.

Keywords

Atrazineclopyralidflumetsulamglufosinatemetolachlorgiant foxtail, Setaria faberii (L.) Beauv. SETFAcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAcorn, Zea mays L., ‘Pioneer 33G28’Banded herbicidereduced rateszone herbicide applicationsprayerweed management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 821 - 833
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. 2000. Missouri Crop and Weather Report. Columbia, MO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.Google Scholar
Bedmar, F., Manetti, P., and Monterubbianesi, G. 1999. Determination of the critical period of weed control in corn using a thermal basis. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. Brasilia 34:187–193.Google Scholar
Blanchard, P. E. and Donald, W. W. 1997. Herbicide contamination of groundwater beneath claypan soils in north-central Missouri. J. Environ. Qual 26:1612–1621.Google Scholar
Blanchard, P. E. and Lerch, R. N. 2000. Watershed vulnerability to losses of agrichemical chemicals interactions of chemistry, hydrology and land-use. Environ. Sci. Technol 34:3315–3322.Google Scholar
Boldt, L. D. and Barrett, M. 1989. Factors in alachlor and metolachlor injury to corn (Zea mays) seedlings. Weed Technol 3:303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, B. G. 1982. Weed control versus soil erosion control. J. Soil Water Conserv 37:73–76.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J 87:507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Modeling the integrated management of giant foxtail in corn-soybean. Weed Sci 49:675–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2004. Interference effects of weed-infested bands in or between crop rows on field corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol 17:755–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W., Hjelmfelt, A. T. Jr., and Alberts, E. E. 1998. Herbicide distribution and variability across Goodwater Creek watershed in north central Missouri. J. Environ. Qual 27:999–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W., Johnson, W. G., and Nelson, K. A. 2004. In-row and between-row interference by corn (Zea mays) modifies the response of annual weed cover to preemergence residual herbicides. Weed Technol. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, R. S. 1998. The role of best management practices in reducing triazine runoff. Pages 49–59 in Ballantine, L. G., McFarland, J. E., and Hackett, D. S. eds. Triazine Herbicides: Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., Tan, C. S., Drury, C. F., Van Wesenbeeck, I. J., and Welacky, T. W. 1995. Atrazine in surface and subsurface runoff as affected by cultural practices. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 30:513–531.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 20–30, 241–247, 316–356.Google 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
Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. 1995. Herbicide reduction in metribuzin-based weed control programs in corn. Can. J. Plant Sci 75:927–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeft, R. G., Nafziger, E. D., Johnson, R. R., and Aldrich, S. R. 2000. Modern Corn and Soybean Production. 1st ed. Campaign, IL: MCSP. Pp. 90–91.Google Scholar
Hoshmand, A. R. 1994. Experimental Research Design and Analysis. A Practical Approach for Agricultural and Natural Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 59–127, 297–345.Google Scholar
Jamison, V. C., Smith, D. D., and Thornton, J. F. 1968. Soil and Water Research on a Claypan Soil. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bull. 1379. 5 p.Google Scholar
Kansas State University. 2002. 2002 Chemical Weed Control. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Report of Progress 884. 16 p.Google Scholar
Kunkel, D. L., Bellinder, R. R., and Steffens, J. C. 1996. Safeners reduce corn (Zea mays) chloroacetanilide and dicamba injury under different soil temperatures. Weed Technol 10:115–120.Google Scholar
Larson, S. J., Capel, P. D., and Majewski, M. S. 1997. Pesticides in Surface Waters. Distribution, Trends, and Governing Factors. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press. Pp. 217–234.Google Scholar
Lin, B. H., Taylor, H., Delvo, H., and Bull, L. 1995. Factors influencing herbicide use in corn production in the North Central region. Rev. Agric. Econ 17:159–169.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J. 1993. Agricultural best management practices for water pollution control: current issues. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 46:223–231.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J., Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L., and Overcash, M. R. eds. 1987. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality. Nitrates and Pesticides. Chelsea, MI: Lewis. 292 p.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. 2000. Pesticide Application Methods. 3rd ed. London: Blackwell Science. 432 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R. 1987. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Monograph 4. Campaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 358 p.Google Scholar
Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. 2001 Missouri Farm Facts. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Agriculture. 39 p.Google Scholar
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Public Notice of Proposed Final Missouri Section 303(d) List. July 15, 2002. http://agebb.missouri.edu/mass/index.htm.Google Scholar
Mutchler, C. K. and Greer, J. D. 1984. Reduced tillage for soybean. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 27:1364–1369.Google Scholar
Myers, R. H. and Montgomery, D. C. 2002. Response Surface Methodology. Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. 798 p.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Agricultural Statistics Database. www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/.Google Scholar
Nelson, H. and Jones, R. D. 1994. Potential regulatory problems associated with atrazine, cyanazine, and alachlor in surface water source drinking water. Weed Technol 8:852–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides for weed control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 7:995–1000.Google Scholar
Plain, R., White, J., and Travois, J. 2001. 2000 Custom Rates for Farm Services in Missouri. Columbia, MO: MU Extension, University of Missouri. G302. 6 p.Google Scholar
Rikoon, J. S., Constance, D. H., and Galetta, S. 1996. Factors affecting farmer's use and rejection of banded pesticide applications. J. Soil Water Conserv 51:322–329.Google Scholar
Ruiz, J. A., Sanchez, J. J., and Goodman, M. M. 1998. Base temperature and heat unit requirement of 49 Mexican maize races. Maydica 43:277–282.Google Scholar
[SPSS] Statistical Package for Social Sciences. 2001. SPSS User's Guide v. 11. Chicago, IL: Statistical Package for Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol 14:106–115.Google Scholar