Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:11:48.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Postemergence Weed Control Strategies in Herbicide-Resistant Isolines of Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Karen A. Zuver ,
Mark L. Bernards ,
James J. Kells ,
Christy L. Sprague ,
Case R. Medlin  and
Mark M. Loux
Karen A. Zuver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Mark L. Bernards
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Case R. Medlin
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47607
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide-resistant corn hybrids offer additional options for POST weed control in corn, and growers may benefit from information on the consistency of these weed-control strategies. Studies were conducted in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, in 2000 and 2001, to evaluate weed control among herbicide strategies for imidazolinone-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, glyphosate-resistant, and conventional corn. Isogenic hybrids were utilized to minimize variation in growth and yield potential among hybrids. The glyphosate-resistant corn postemergence (glyphosate-POST) treatment provided more consistent control of giant foxtail than the PRE, conventional corn postemergence (conventional-POST), glufosinate-resistant corn postemergence (glufosinate-POST), and imidazolinone-resistant corn postemergence (imi-POST) treatments. All four POST treatments were more consistent and provided greater control than the PRE treatment of the large-seeded broadleaf weeds velvetleaf, giant ragweed, common cocklebur, and morningglory species. Conventional-POST and imi-POST were more consistent than glufosinate-POST and glyphosate-POST treatments in controlling giant ragweed. There were no statistical differences in the variability of PRE or POST treatments for control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and redroot pigweed. Corn yield varied among locations and years. The glyphosate-POST treatment did not reduce yield relative to the weed-free treatment, the imi-POST and glufosinate-POST treatments each reduced yield in one of eight locations, and the conventional-POST treatment reduced yield in three of eight locations.

Keywords

Metolachloratrazinenicosulfuronrimsulfurondicambaimazethapyrimazapyrglufosinateglyphosatecommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi (L.) Herrm. # SETFAgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. # AMBTRmorningglory species, Ipomea spp. # IPOSSredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. # ZEAMXCorn yieldherbicide-resistant cropherbicide systemIpomea species, conventional corn, imidazolinoneAMS, ammonium sulfatecrm, comparative relative maturityDAP, days after postemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 172 - 178
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

Anderson, D. M., Swanton, D. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993a. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:149–160.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Swanton, D. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993b. The influence of soil moisture, simulated rainfall and time of application on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139–147.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1996. Response of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) to postemergence imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 44:248–251.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. F. and Beard, J. B. eds. 1992. Glossary of crop science terms. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America. 88 p. Available on-line:http://www.crops.org/cropgloss/. Accessed June 15, 2005.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Miele, S. 2001. Quantitative analysis of emergence of seedlings from buried weed seeds with increasing soil depth. Weed Sci. 49:528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate resistant corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 14:495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn yield. Weed Technol. 9:356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciha, A. J. and Cole, R. M. 1999. Efficacy of glyphosate/atrazine premix in glyphosate tolerant corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:89.Google Scholar
Comai, L., Sen, L., and Stalker, D. M. 1983. An altered aroA gene product confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Science 221:370–371.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Lingenfelter, D. D., and Werner, E. L. 1999. Glyphosate versus glufosinate: what have we learned? Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:105–106.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004a. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004b. Glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18:177–182.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.Google Scholar
Hamill, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Chandler, K., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F. J., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:578–585.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Webb, J. E. 2001. Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn. Weed Sci. 49:224–229.Google Scholar
Hartzler, B. 2000. Weed emergence sequences: knowledge to guide scouting and control (poster). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension IPM 64.Google Scholar
Higgens, J. M., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Common lambsquarters control with non-selective herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:884–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillger, D. E., Bauman, T. T., and White, M. D. 2002. Economic comparison of herbicide resistant corn technologies. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 42:1.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.Google Scholar
Kells, J. J. and Dysinger, K. 1996. Yield potential of selected IMI corn hybrids. in Dysinger, K., Harpstead, D. D., Leep, R. H., Lempke, J., Allen, M., and Main, D., eds. Corn hybrids compared in the 1995 season. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-431. P. 5.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1998. Total postemergence weed control in imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:151–156.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Azlin, W. R. 1978. Effects of environment on the toxicity of glyphosate to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:605–608.Google Scholar
Newhouse, K., Wang, T., and Anderson, P. 1991. Imidazolinone-tolerant crops. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The imidazolinone herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 139–150.Google Scholar
Rasche, E. and Gadsby, M. 1997. Glufosinate ammonium tolerant crops— international commercial developments and experiences. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 3:941–946.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 2001. The SAS System, version 8.2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. and Anderson, P. C. 1996. Imidazolinone-resistant crops: Selection, characterization, and management. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-resistant crops: Agricultural, environmental, economic, regulatory, and technical aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 143–158.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci. 45:378–381.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Alm, D. M. 1993. Survey results on environmental issues and weed science research priorities within the Corn Belt. Weed Technol. 7:763–770.Google Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Kapusta, G., Loux, M. M., Lueschen, W. E., Owen, M. D., Hageman, L. H., and Strachen, S. D. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci. 45:138–143.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Bauman, T. T. et al. 2004. Assessment of weed control strategies for corn (Zea mays) in the North-Central United States. Weed Technol. 18:203–210.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 13:542–547.Google Scholar