Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:36:49.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays) with Glufosinate or Imazethapyr plus Imazapyr in a Replant Situation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tye C. Shauck  and
Reid J. Smeda
Tye C. Shauck*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, 108 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, 108 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Undesirable stands of hybrid corn often result in a decision to replant; removal of the initial corn is recommended to reduce competition for available resources. Because much of the hybrid corn is glyphosate-resistant (GR), the particular herbicide and timing for control is challenging. No-till field trials were established in central and northeast Missouri in 2009 and 2010 to determine the efficacy of glufosinate POST in glufosinate-resistant corn or imazethapyr plus imazapyr POST in imidazolinone-resistant corn for the control of GR corn. Separate blocks of glufosinate-resistant and imidazolinone-resistant corn were planted in 76 cm rows, with GR corn established between rows at densities of 1 (low) and 4 (high) plants m−2. Herbicides were broadcast at corn heights of 10, 20, and 40 cm. Visual estimates of control rated 5 wk after treatment were highest for the 20 cm application height, ranging from 81 to 84% and 72 to 79% with glufosinate or imazethapyr plus imazapyr, respectively. Control was unacceptable at 10 and 40 cm, ranging from 26 to 62% and 24 to 83%. Dry weights per plant indicated that applications at all heights reduced GR corn biomass a minimum of 94 and 82% with glufosinate or imazethapyr plus imazapyr, respectively. Although control of GR corn with single applications of glufosinate and imazethapyr plus imazapyr was unacceptable for two of three application heights, reductions in corn biomass indicate applications were effective.

Establecimientos indeseables de maíz híbrido muchas veces resultan en la decisión de replantar; se recomienda eliminar el maíz inicial para reducir la competencia por los recursos disponibles. Debido a que mucho del maíz híbrido es resistente a glyphosate (GR), es un desafío determinar el herbicida específico y el momento de aplicación para el control. Experimentos en campos con cero labranza se realizaron en el centro y noreste de Missouri en 2009 y 2010, para determinar la eficacia en el control de maíz GR de glufosinate POST en maíz resistente a este herbicida o imazethapyr más imazapyr POST en maíz resistente a herbicidas imidazolinone. Bloques separados de maíz resistente a glufosinate y maíz resistente a imidazolinone se sembraron en líneas distanciadas a 76 cm, con maíz GR establecido entre líneas a densidades de 1 (baja) y 4 (alta) plantas m−2. Los herbicidas se rociaron cuando el maíz alcanzó alturas de 10, 20 y 40 cm. Las estimaciones visuales de control más altas, hechas 5 semanas después del tratamiento, fueron para aplicaciones a los 20 cm de altura, variando de 81 a 84% y de 72 a 79% con glufosinate o imazethapyr más imazapyr, respectivamente. El control fue inaceptable a los 10 y 40 cm, variando de 26 a 62% y de 24 a 83%. Los pesos secos por planta indicaron que las aplicaciones a todas las alturas redujeron la biomasa del maíz GR un mínimo de 94 y 82% con glufosinate o imazethapyr más imazapyr, respectivamente. Aunque el control de maíz GR con una sola aplicación de glufosinate e imazethapyr más imazapyr fue inaceptable para dos de las tres alturas de aplicación, las reducciones en la biomasa del maíz indican que las aplicaciones fueron efectivas.

Keywords

Glufosinateimazapyrimazethapyrcorn, Zea mays L.Glyphosate-resistantglufosinate-resistantimidazolinone-resistantreplant
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 417 - 421
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

Alister, C. and Kogan, M. 2005. Efficacy of imidazolinone herbicides applied to imidazolinone-resistant maize and their carryover effect on rotational crops. Crop Prot. 24:375–379.Google Scholar
Alms, J., Moechnig, M., Deneke, D., and Vos, D. 2008. Volunteer Corn Control Effect on Corn and Soybean Yield. North Central Weed Science Society Proceedings, Abstract 63:16. Indianapolis, IN. http://www.ncwss.org/proceed/2008/abstracts/016.pdf. Accessed: February 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2008a. Lightning Herbicide Label Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Corporation. 10 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2008b. Ignite 280 SL Herbicide Label Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience LP. 15 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009. Select Max 2EE Herbicide Label Walnut Creek, CA Valent U.S.A. 43 p.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. 2007. Killing frost-damaged corn—It's not as easy as it sounds. Integrated Pest and Crop Management. 17(6). Article 2 of 6. 2 p. http://ppp.missouri.edu/newsletters/ipcm/archives/v17n6/ipmltr2.htm. Accessed: November8, 2010.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Currie, R., Lee, J., Fast, B., and Murray, D. 2007. Clethodim, Glufosinate, or Paraquat Tank Mixes for Control of Volunteer Corn. K-State Southwest Research–Extension Center, Manhattan, KS. Pp. 48–50. http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/crpsl2/SRP980.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Maxwell, D. J., Moody, J. L., Wax, L. M., Foes, M. J., Zinck, D., Parker, E. J., and Semmel, T. W. 2005. Control of Volunteer Corn in Herbicide-Resistant Corn. North Central Weed Science Society Proceedings. Abstract, 60:196. Champaign, IL. http://www.ncwss.org/proceed/2005/proc05/abstracts/196.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Jeschke, M. and Doerge, T. 2008. Managing Volunteer Corn in Cornfields. Crop Insights. 18(3):1–3. http://www.mccormickcompany.net/pioneer/cropinsights/73.pdf. Accessed: November 2, 2009.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Retzinger, E. J., Fellows, G. M., and Hartberg, T. J. 2001. Volunteer Corn Control in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn with Imazethapyr Plus Imazapyr. North Central Weed Science Society Proceedings. Abstract 56. Champaign, IL. http://www.ncwss.org/proceed/2001/abstracts/009.pdf. Accessed: January 23, 2009.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. R., Hicks, D. R., and Wright, D. L. 1990. Guidelines for making corn replanting decisions. National Corn Handbook Publication NCH-30 West Lafayette, IN Purdue University. 4 p.Google Scholar
Kucharik, C. J. 2006. A multidecadal trend of earlier corn planting in the central USA. Agron. J. 98:1544–1550.Google Scholar
Kumaratilake, A. R. and Preston, C. 2005. Low temperature reduces glufosinate activity and translocation in wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Weed Sci. 53:10–16.Google Scholar
Larson, E. 2009. Corn Replant/Late Planting Suggestions. Grain Crops Update. Mississippi State University. Extension Service. http://msucares.com/newsletters/grain/2009/april17_2009.pdf. Accessed: January 31, 2012.Google Scholar
Owen, M.D.K. 2010. Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in Genetically Engineered Crops. For Congress. Washington, DC: Subcomittee on Domestic Policy, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/t_Herbicide_Resistant_Weeds_in_GE_Crops.asp. Accessed: February 18, 2011.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 2010. Version 9.2. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.Google Scholar
Smith, K. 2011. Replanting Corn in Arkansas—Destruction of Old Stand is Critical for Weed Control. University of Arkansas. Division of Agriculture Research and Extension. http://www.arkansas-crops.com/2011/04/29/replanting-corn-in-arkansas-destruction-of-old-stand-is-critical-for-weed-control/. Accessed: January 31, 2012.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Thompson, M. A., and Hayes, R. M. 2009. Herbicide options for controlling glyphosate-tolerant corn in a corn replant situation. Weed Technol. 23:243–246.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. and Steckel, L. 2007. Replanting Corn in a Failed Roundup Ready Corn Stand. University of Tennessee Extension. W164. https://utextension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/W164.pdf. Accessed: January 31, 2012.Google Scholar
Vasil, I. K. 1996. Phosphinothricin-resistant crops. Pages 85–91 in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton CRC Press.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. and Hart, S. E. 1997. Control of volunteer sethoxydim-resistant corn (Zea mays) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 11:649–655.Google Scholar