Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:35:55.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economics of Weed Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays L.)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Pauley R. Bradley ,
William G. Johnson ,
Stephen E. Hart ,
Michelle L. Buesinger  and
Raymond E. Massey
Pauley R. Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Stephen E. Hart
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Michelle L. Buesinger
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Raymond E. Massey
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1997 and 1998 near Columbia and Novelty, MO, and at Urbana, IL, to evaluate corn injury, weed control, corn yield, and estimated economic returns with weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant corn. Herbicide programs included acetochlor preemergence (PRE) followed by glufosinate alone or with atrazine postemergence (POST) and total POST programs consisting of single and sequential applications of glufosinate alone or tank mixed with acetochlor, atrazine, or acetochlor plus atrazine. Metolachlor PRE followed by dicamba plus atrazine early POST (EPOST) and metolachlor plus atrazine PRE were included for comparison. In the total POST treatments, mid-POST applications controlled shattercane and common cocklebur better than EPOST applications. However, yield reductions as high as 23% occurred because of early-season weed interference, although weeds were controlled later in the season. Applying atrazine with glufosinate generally increased control of giant foxtail, common cocklebur, morningglory species, and common waterhemp compared to glufosinate alone, but did not increase control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, or Pennsylvania smartweed. Corn yield was positively correlated with weed control (r = 0.88) and more strongly dependent on grass (r = 0.82) than broadleaf (r = 0.70) weed control. Net incomes were positively correlated to corn yield (r = 0.73). Four of the top six net income-producing treatments included two herbicide applications. Three of the treatments were PRE followed by POST programs, and the fourth was a sequential POST treatment of glufosinate.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazinedicambaglufosinatemetolachlorcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer # AMATAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi (L.) Herrm. # SETFAmorningglory, Ipomoea sppPennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pensylvanicum L. # POLPYshattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. # SORVUvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (L.) Medikus # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. # ZEAMX ‘Pioneer 34A55’Corn yieldeconomic returnsglufosinate-resistant cropAMATAABUTHCHEALPOLPYSETFASORVUXANSTZEAMXALS, acetolactate synthaseCV, coefficient of variationEPOST, early postemergenceMPOST, mid-postemergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 495 - 501
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

Allen, J. R., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Holman, C. S., Bradley, P. R., and Dirks, J. T. 1998. Field verification of ALS-resistant common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in Missouri. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:306.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. D., Roeth, F. W., and Martin, A. R. 1998. Discovery of a primisulfuron-resistant shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) biotype. Weed Technol. 12: 74–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1997a. Clarity herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. Agricultural Products Group. p. 4.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997b. Accent herbicide product label. Wilmington, DE: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Agricultural Products Division. p. 2.Google Scholar
Bader, B. M., Defelice, M. S., Dilbeck, J. S., and Holman, C. S. 1995. Effects of ALS herbicide programs on common waterhemp and shattercane resistant populations. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 131–132.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
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45: 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., and Holman, C. S. 1997. Weed control programs in glufosinate and glyphosate tolerant corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:62.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Randall, G. W., Koskinen, W. C., and Wyse, D. L. 1993. Atrazine and alachlor losses from subsurface tile drainage of clay loam soil. J. Environ. Qual. 22: 583–588.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemerge herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9: 365–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, J. C., Kells, J. J., Swinton, S. M., and Renner, K. A. 1997. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45: 256–260.Google Scholar
Ghidey, F., Alberts, E. E., and Lerch, R. N. 1997. Spatial and temporal variability of herbicides in claypan soil watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1555–1563.Google Scholar
Hinz, J.R.R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations. Weed Technol. 11: 13–18.Google Scholar
Hoobler, M. A., Regehr, D. L., and Barnes, P. L. 1997. Atrazine loss in surface water runoff as influenced by application rate and timing. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:35.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G. and Bradley, P. R. 1998. Herbicide tolerant corn: a survey of Missouri. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:83.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Frans, R. E., and Parsch, L. D. 1991. Economics of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 765–770.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Baldwin, J. 1997. Corn tolerance and weed control with glufosinate. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:11.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1992. Interaction of terbufos and nicosulfuron on corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6: 999–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds. 13: 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. D., Martin, A. R., and Roth, F. W. 1996. Occurrence of ALS resistant shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) in Nebraska. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 8–9.Google Scholar
Lycan, D. W. and Hart, S. E. 1997. Utilization of herbicide resistant corn for woolly cupgrass management. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:11.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1993. In-furrow terbufos reduces field and sweet corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 934–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Wedberg, J. L., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., and Lueschen, W. E. 1994. Influence of corn rootworm insecticides on the response of field corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 8: 289–295.Google Scholar
Oriade, C. A., Dillon, D. R., Vories, E. D., and Bohannon, M. E. 1997. An economic analysis of alternative cropping and row spacing systems for soybean production. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 619–624.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Sequential applications control woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) and wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 537–542.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of soil-applied atrazine and pendimethalin on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competitiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12: 47–52.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., Lavy, T. L., Mattice, J. D., Gbur, E. E., and Skulman, B. W. 1997. Trace level pesticide detections in Arkansas surface waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spandl, E., Rabaey, T. L., Kells, J. J., and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Application timing for weed control in corn (Zea mays) with dicamba tank mixtures. Weed Technol. 11: 602–607.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997a. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 11: 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997b. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 192–197.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.Google Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., et al. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn grain yield. Weed Sci. 45: 138–143.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1997. Weed management strategies in glufosinate resistant and glyphosate resistant corn (Zea mays). Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:64.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1997 Field Crops Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economics Research Service. p. 17.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Missouri Farm Facts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. p. 62.Google Scholar
Vizantinopoulos, S. and Katranis, N. 1998. Weed management of Amaranthus spp. in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12: 145–150.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 1999. Weed management with reduced rates of glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 478–483.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Hart, S. E., and Maxwell, D. J. 1997. Weed control systems in glyphosate-resistant corn. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54:150.Google Scholar