Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:19:30.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn with Glyphosate and Halosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walter E. Thomas ,
Ian C. Burke  and
John W. Wilcut
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three field studies were conducted at Lewiston Woodville, NC, in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate crop tolerance, weed control, grain yield, and net returns in glyphosate-resistant corn with various herbicide systems. Crop injury, weed control, and grain yield were not influenced by glyphosate formulation. Atrazine preemergence (PRE) and atrazine plus metolachlor PRE, averaged over postemergence (POST) systems, controlled Texas panicum at least 80 and 87%, respectively. Sequential glyphosate applications (early postemergence [EPOST] followed by [fb] POST) provided at least 99% control of Texas panicum compared with at least 86 and 88% control with glyphosate EPOST and glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST, respectively. Atrazine plus metolachlor PRE fb any glyphosate system controlled large crabgrass and goosegrass 89 to 100% and 94 to 100%, respectively. Sequential glyphosate treatments controlled large crabgrass and goosegrass at least 99 and 95%, respectively. Regardless of PRE system, glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST and sequential applications of glyphosate controlled common ragweed and common lambsquarters at least 99%, whereas glyphosate EPOST alone provided at least 88 and 96% control, respectively. Glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST and glyphosate sequentially controlled yellow nutsedge similarly and more consistently than glyphosate EPOST. Regardless of PRE treatment, sequential glyphosate applications provided at least 98% control of entireleaf and pitted morningglory, whereas glyphosate EPOST controlled at least 64 and 62%, respectively. Glyphosate EPOST and the sequential glyphosate EPOST fb POST systems yielded similarly at all three locations. Net returns were highest at all three locations with the glyphosate sequential system, with similar net returns obtained with glyphosate EPOST and glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST at two and one locations, respectively.

Keywords

Atrazineglyphosatehalosulfuronmetolachlorcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integruiscula Gray # IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLATexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPEScorn, Zea mays L. # ZEAMXDiammonium saltisopropylamine saltnet returnsDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1049 - 1057
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

Anonymous. 1999. Roundup ultra supplemental label 21137Y6-8. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002a. Crop Protection Reference. 18th ed. New York: C&P Press. Pp. F136–F137.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002b. Accent label SL-810 051502. Wilmington, DE: DuPont.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2002 Field Crops Summary. United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service Bulletin Ag Ch 1(03): Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0503.txt. Accessed: August 23, 2003.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.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
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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Spears, J. F., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003a. Influence of environmental factors on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) seed germination. Weed Sci. 51:683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Spears, J. F., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003b. Influence of environmental factors on after-ripened crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium) seed germination. Weed Sci. 51:342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. 2001. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:544–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 2002. Comparison of glyphosate with other herbicides for weed control in corn (Zea mays): efficacy and economics. Weed Technol. 16:701–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, D. W. and Harvey, R. G. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and annual weed control in glyphosate-resistant field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Batts, R. B. 1998. Annual grass control by glyphosate plus bentazon, chlorimuron, fomesafen, and imazethapyr mixtures. Weed Technol. 12:134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2002. Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period for weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S. E. and Wax, L. M. 1999. Review and future prospectus on the impacts of herbicide resistant maize on weed management. Maydica 44:25–36.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III. 1989. Weed Facts: Texas panicum. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Bull 1008. Pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1990. Efficacy and economic analysis of Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) management systems in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:754–758.CrossRefGoogle 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). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1992. Interaction of terbufos and nicosulfuron on corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:999–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. J. and Ngim, J. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L) Gaertn) in Malaysia. Pest Manag. Sci 56:336–339.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Retzinger, E. J. Jr. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 17:605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekki, M. and Leroux, G. D. 1994. Activity of nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and their mixture on field corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and 7 weed species. Weed Technol. 8:436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekki, M. and Leroux, G. D. 1995. Foliar absorption and translocation of nicosulfuron and rimsulfuron in 5 annual weed species. Weed Res 35:377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D., Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Hatton, J. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1996. Effect of AC 263,222, imazethapyr, and nicosulfuron on weed control and imidazolinone-tolerant corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 10:822–827.CrossRefGoogle 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
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. W., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 4:865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:512–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45:426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:371–378.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
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14:413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Johnson, W. C. III, and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2001. Grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Wilcut, J. W., and Eastin, E. F. 1993. Weed control and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response to nicosulfuron and bentazon alone and in tank mixture. Weed Sci. 41:615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Glyphosate systems for weed control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. Weed Technol. 16:191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Duyn, J. W. 2003. Insect control in field corn. in Toth, S. J. Jr., ed. North Carolina Agricultural Chemical Manual. Raleigh, NC: The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University. Pp. 62–64.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Garrett, K. A., and Westra, P. 1995. Influence of weed density and distribution on corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Sci. 43:215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Technol. 9:148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economies in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:247–252.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1995. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops, Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Lewis Publishers. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1999. Response of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays) to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 13:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci 6:177–205.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., Smith, W. D., and Fisher, L. R. 2003. Chemical weed control in field crops. in Toth, S. J. Jr., ed. North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC: The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University. Pp. 306–315.Google Scholar