Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:54:30.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Both Winter Annual and Summer Annual Weeds in No-Till Corn with Between-Row Mowing Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald
William W. Donald*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 269 Agricultural Engineering Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In previous research, summer annual weeds were successfully controlled in no-till corn with between-row mowing systems that consisted of soil-residual preemergence herbicides banded over corn rows followed by mowing weeds close to the soil surface one or two times later during the growing season. The objective of this research was to determine whether between-row mowing systems could successfully control both winter annual and summer annual weeds as well as broadcast herbicides perform in no-till corn. In two of three years in Missouri, between-row mowing systems controlled and reduced both winter annual and summer annual weed cover and prevented weeds from reducing corn yields. Corn yields for the following no-till weed management systems equaled the weed-free check: winter annual weed control with between-row mowing plus preplant, banded, postemergence-applied glyphosate at 1.1 kg ae/ha and later summer annual weed control with postplant, banded, preemergence-applied atrazine plus S-metolachlor at 2.2 plus 1.8 kg ai/ha followed by between-row mowing. Winter annual weeds growing between rows were controlled with one mowing, and later summer annual weeds were controlled with either one late or “middle” mowing or two mowings (i.e., early and late). Total herbicide use was reduced 50% (i.e., 25 and 25%, respectively) in no-till corn. Commercially acceptable corn stands were needed for between-row mowing systems to adequately control weeds. In one of three years when corn stands were half of those of the other two years, broadcast herbicides performed better than between-row mowing systems in no-till corn.

Keywords

Atrazine, S-metolachlorcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 33G28’ ZEAMXAlternative weed controlapplicationbandingband applicationcuttingmechanical weed controlnonchemical weed controldecreased herbicide rate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 591 - 601
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

Bedmar, F., Manetti, P., and Monterubbianesi, G. 1999. Determination of the critical period of weed control in corn using a thermal basis. Pesq. Agropec. Bowas. Basilia 34:187–193.Google Scholar
Bicki, T. J., Wax, L. M., and Sipp, S. K. 1991. Evaluation of reduced herbicide application strategies for weed control in coarse-textured soils. J. Prod. Agric. 4:516–519.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2000a. Between row mowing + in-row band-applied herbicide for weed control in Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:487–500.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2000b. Timing and frequency of between-row mowing and band-applied herbicide for annual weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 92:1013–1019.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2006. Preemergence banded herbicides followed by only one between-row mowing controls weeds in corn. Weed Technol. 20:143–149.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2003. 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., Kitchen, N. R., and Sudduth, K. A. 2001. Between-row mowing + banded herbicide to control annual weeds and reduce herbicide use in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:576–584.Google Scholar
Doyle, P. and Stypa, M. 2004. Reduced herbicide rate—a Canadian perspective. Weed Technol. 18:1157–1165.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.Google Scholar
Hoshmand, A. R. 1994. Experiment Research Design and Analysis. A Practical Approach for Agricultural and Natural Sciences. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13:331–334.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybean. Weed Sci. 17:281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Streibig, J. C. 2003. Herbicides—a two-edged sword. Weed Res. 43:90–102.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J. 1993. Agricultural best management practices for water pollution control: current issues. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46:223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajcan, I. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize-weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Res. 71:139–150.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. and Baker, D. B. 1993. Pesticide concentration patterns in agricultural drainage networks in the Lake Erie Basin. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:13–26.Google Scholar
Ruiz, J. A., Sanchez, J. J., and Goodman, M. M. 1998. Base temperature and heat unit requirements of 49 Mexican maize races. Maydica 43:277–282.Google Scholar
Santelmann, P. W., Meade, J. A., and Peters, R. A. 1963. Growth and development of yellow foxtail and giant foxtail. Weeds 11:139–142.Google Scholar
Tokatlidis, I. S. and Koutroubas, S. D. 2004. A review of maize hybrid's dependence on high plant populations and its implications for crop yield stability. Field Crops Res. 88:103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1992. Is low plant density a stress in maize? Maydica 37:305–311.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994b. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86:591–595.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., McCullough, D. E., and Dwyer, L. M. 1994a. Physiological basis of the genetic improvement of corn. in Slafer, G.A., ed. Genetic Improvement of Field Crops. New York Marcel Dekker. 183–236.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Wu, J. 1999. Yield improvement in temperature maize is attributable to greater stress tolerance. Crop Sci. 39:1597–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service 2004. Agricultural Chemical Usage Database. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/app_usage.cfm. Accessed: September 2, 2005.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