Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:27:12.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Significance of Atrazine in Sweet Corn Weed Management Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
Chris M. Boerboom  and
Tom L. Rabaey
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research, USDA–ARS, University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Chris M. Boerboom
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Tom L. Rabaey
Affiliation:
General Mills Agricultural Research, 1201 N. 4th St., LeSueur, MN 56058
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management systems used by sweet corn growers, including the role of atrazine, are poorly characterized. Management records of 175 fields throughout the major sweet corn production areas of the Midwest were surveyed from 2005 to 2007. Seventy-four percent of sweet corn fields in the Midwest were grown in rotation with soybean or corn. Interrow cultivation was used on 48% of fields, and atrazine use was higher in those fields without interrow cultivation. A majority of fields (54%) received both PRE and POST herbicide applications. Mesotrione was applied below the registered use rate in two-thirds of the fields in which it was used POST. Atrazine rates in sweet corn were highest when the preceding crops were other vegetables, compared to preceding crops of soybean or corn. Selective herbicides are used extensively in U.S. sweet corn production, accounting for 94% of total weed management expenditures which average $123/ha. Growers treated 66% of fields with one or more applications of atrazine at an average total use rate of 1.35 kg ai/ha. The estimated annual net cost to replace atrazine in U.S. sweet corn production with the broad spectrum broadleaf herbicide, mesotrione, is $9.2 million.

Ha sido insuficiente la investigación llevada al cabo en cuanto a los sistemas de manejo de malezas utilizados por los productores de maíz dulce incluyendo el papel que ha jugado el uso de la atrazine en ellos. Los registros de manejo de malezas de 175 parcelas se revisaron en las áreas de mayor producción de maíz dulce localizadas en el medio oeste del 2005 al 2007. El 74% de las parcelas fueron sembradas en rotación con soya o maíz forrajero. Se utilizó el cultivo entre surcos en el 48% de las parcelas y el uso de atrazine fue mayor en las parcelas donde no se sembró entre surcos. La mayoría de las parcelas (54%) recibió aplicaciones de herbicidas tanto en el período de pre-siembra como el de post-siembra. El mesotrione fue aplicado por debajo de la dosis registrada en dos terceras partes de las parcelas en donde se usó éste en post- siembra. Las dosis utilizadas de atrazine en maíz dulce fueron más altas cuando el cultivo precedente fue otro vegetal en comparación a cuando el cultivo anterior fue soya o maíz forrajero. Los herbicidas selectivos son usados frecuentemente en la producción de maíz dulce en los Estados Unidos y representan el 94% del total de los gastos efectuados en el manejo de malezas, cuyo promedio es de $ 123.00 dólares por Ha. Los productores trataron el 66% de sus parcelas con una o más aplicaciones de atrazine con una dosis promedio de 1.35 Kg de ingrediente activo (ia) x Ha. El costo neto anual estimado para reemplazar el atrazine en la producción de maíz dulce en los Estados Unidos con el mesotrione, que es un herbicida de amplio espectro para hoja ancha, es de $9.2 millones de dólares.

Keywords

AtrazinemesotrionecornZea mays L.soybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrEconomicsintegrated weed managementreduced rateregulatorysurvey
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 139 - 142
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

Abendroth, J. A., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 2006. Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol 20:267–274.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2003. Sweet Corn Pest Management Strategic Plan. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/NCSweetcorn.pdf. Accessed: November 15, 2003.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C., Cullen, E., Esker, P., Flashinski, R., Grau, C., Jensen, B., and Renz, M. 2008. Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension. 243.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency 2009. Atrazine Science Reevaluation: Potential Health Impacts. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0759-0003. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm. Accessed: October 27, 2009.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2008. Agricultural Statistics. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2008/index.asp. Accessed: October 27, 2009.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago, IL: Irwin. 1408.Google Scholar
Nordby, J. N., Williams, M. M. II, Pataky, J. K., Riechers, D. E., and Lutz, J. D. 2008. A common genetic basis in sweet corn inbred Cr1 for cross sensitivity to multiple cytochrome P450-metabolized herbicides. Weed Sci 56:376–382.Google Scholar
So, Y. F., Williams, M. M. II, Pataky, J. K., and Davis, A. S. 2009. Principal canopy factors of sweet corn and relationships to competitive ability with wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci 57:296–303.Google Scholar
Sutton, P., Richards, C., Buren, L., and Glasgow, L. 2002. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci 58:981–984.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Gulden, R. H., and Chandler, K. 2007. A rationale for atrazine stewardship in corn. Weed Sci 55:75–81.Google Scholar
Tracy, W. F. 2001. Sweet corn. Pages 155–197. In Hallauer, A. R. Specialty Corns. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
University of Minnesota Extension 2008. Machinery cost estimates. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/DF6696.pdf. Accessed: October 22, 2008.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II 2009. Within-season changes in the residual weed community and crop tolerance to interference over the long planting season of sweet corn. Weed Sci 57:319–325.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Davis, A. S., Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2009. Linkages among agronomic, environmental, and weed management characteristics in North American sweet corn production. Field Crops Res 113:161–169.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2008. Residual weeds of sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol 22:646–653.Google Scholar