Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:42:52.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economics of Weed Management in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William G. Johnson ,
Pauley R. Bradley ,
Stephen E. Hart ,
Michelle L. Buesinger  and
Raymond E. Massey
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Pauley R. Bradley
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 Urbana, IL, to evaluate crop injury, weed control, corn yield, and net economic returns provided by weed control programs in glyphosate-resistant corn. The herbicide programs evaluated included acetochlor preemergence (PRE) followed by (fb) glyphosate with or without atrazine postemergence (POST) and total POST programs consisting of single and sequential applications of glyphosate alone and tank-mixed with actochlor, atrazine, or both. Metolachlor PRE fb dicamba plus atrazine POST and metolachlor plus atrazine PRE were included for comparison. In the total POST treatments, mid-post (MPOST) applications provided better control than early-post (EPOST) applications on weeds that germinated throughout the growing season such as shattercane and common cocklebur, but also resulted in yield reductions of up to 23% caused by early-season weed competition. The addition of atrazine to glyphosate POST generally increased control of common cocklebur, morningglory species, and common waterhemp. EPOST or PRE fb EPOST applications generally provided higher yields than MPOST treatments, although MPOST treatments often provided equal or greater weed control at midseason. Treatments including two herbicide applications tended to provide greater weed control, yield, and profit than those with a single application. Input costs for glyphosate-resistant corn are slightly higher than nontransgenic hybrids. However, net economic returns are similar and the use of glyphosate POST allows greater flexibility in POST weed management decisions.

Keywords

Acetochlor, 2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)acetamideatrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N′-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diaminedicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinemetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidecommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L.# XANSTcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer # AMATAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederaceae (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAshattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. # SORVUcorn Zea mays L. # ZEAMX ‘MON802’Corn yieldacetochloratrazinedicambaeconomic returnsmetolachlorAMATAABUTHCHEALIPOHEIPOLAPOLPYSETFASORVUXANSTZEAMXALS, autolactate synthaseEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byMPOST, mid-postemergenceOM, organic matterPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 57 - 65
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.)

Footnotes

1 Publication 12,974 from the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series.

References

Literature Cited

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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, P., Donald, W. W., Alberts, E. E. 1995. Herbicide concentration in a claypan soil watershed. Proc. Am. Soc. Ag. Engineering Conf., Kansas City, MO. Jan. 21-24.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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9: 365–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Loux, M. M. 1996. Glyphosate tolerant corn weed control systems. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 170–171.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghidey, F. and Alberts, E. E. 1996. Comparison of measured and WEPP predicted runoff and soil loss from Midwest claypan soil. Trans. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. 39: 1395–1402.Google Scholar
Ghidey, F., Alberts, E. E., and Lerch, R. N. 1997. Spatial and temporal variability of herbicides in a claypan soil watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1555–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Dekker, J. 1988. Effects of phenology on translocation patterns of several herbicides in quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 36: 463–472.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 in Missouri. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:83.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.Google Scholar
Lee, C. D., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, 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., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantone, D. J., Young, R. A., Buhler, D. D., Eberlein, C. V., Koskinen, W. C., and Forcella, F. 1992. Water quality impacts associated with pre- and postemerge applications of atrazine in maize. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 567–573.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Kapusta, G., Loux, M. M., Lueschen, W. E., Owen, M. D. K., Hageman, L H., Strachan, S. D. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn grain yield. Weed Sci. 45: 138–143.CrossRefGoogle 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
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of burndown application timing on weed control and corn yield in no-tillage glyphosate resistant corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:65.Google Scholar
Thurman, E. M., Goolsby, D. A., Meyer, M. T., Mills, M. S., Pomes, M. L., and Kolpin, D. A. 1992. A reconnaissance study of herbicides and their metabolites in surface water of the midwestern United States using immunoassayand gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26: 2440–2447.Google Scholar
USDA. 1997. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1997 Field Crops Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economic Research Service. 17 p.Google Scholar
USDA. 1998. Missouri Farm Facts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting Service. 62 p.Google Scholar
Vizantinopoulos, S. and Katranis, N. 1998. Weed management of Amaranthus spp. in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12: 145–150.CrossRefGoogle 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