Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T05:08:32.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Weed Control Strategies for Corn in the North-Central United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brent E. Tharp ,
James J. Kells ,
Thomas T. Bauman ,
R. Gordon Harvey ,
William G. Johnson ,
Mark M. Loux ,
Alex R. Martin ,
Douglas J. Maxwell ,
Micheal D. K. Owen  and
David L. Regehr
...Show all authors
Brent E. Tharp
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Thomas T. Bauman
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47607
R. Gordon Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68503
Douglas J. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
David L. Regehr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Jon E. Warnke
Affiliation:
Warnke Research, Geneva, MN 56035
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Panhandle Research Station, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Leon J. Wrage
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and General Agriculture, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Caleb D. Dalley
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kells@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted across the north-central United States to determine the benefits of various weed control strategies in corn. Weed control, corn yield, and economic return increased when a preemergence (PRE) broad-spectrum herbicide was followed by (fb) postemergence (POST) herbicides. Weed control decisions based on field scouting after a PRE broad-spectrum herbicide application increased weed control and economic return. Application of a PRE grass herbicide fb a POST herbicide based on field scouting resulted in less control of velvetleaf and morningglory species, corn yield, and economic return compared with a PRE broad-spectrum herbicide application fb scouting. Cultivation after a PRE broad-spectrum herbicide application increased weed control and corn yield compared with the herbicide applied alone, but economic return was not increased. An early-postemergence herbicide application fb cultivation resulted in the highest level of broadleaf weed control, the highest corn yield, and the greatest economic return compared with all other strategies. Weed control based on scouting proved to be useful in reducing the effect of weed escapes on corn yield and increased economic return compared with PRE herbicide application alone. However, economic return was not greater than the PRE fb planned POST or total POST strategies.

Keywords

Morningglory species, Ipomoea spp.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti L. Medicus # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.Abutilon theophrastiABUTHCHEALChenopodium albumcultivationeconomic analysisfield scoutingIpomoea spp.IPOSSSetaria spp.SETSSweed control systemsEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 203 - 210
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

Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J. 87:507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. F., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Intergrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84:973–978.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 45:329–336.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Norquay, H. M. 1997. Seed production and seedbank dynamics in subthreshold velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) populations. Weed Sci. 45:85–90.Google 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. 9:356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:324–333.Google Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Gray, M. E. 1995. Survey of integrated pest management practices in central Illinois. J. Prod. Agric. 8:483–486.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Beusinger, 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
Mohler, C. L., Frisch, J. C., and Pleasant, J. Mount 1997. Evaluation of mechanical weed management programs for corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:123–131.Google Scholar
Pleasant, J. Mount, Burt, R. F., and Frisch, J. C. 1994. Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, R. L. 1993. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press. 100 p.Google 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. 11:537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmenk, R. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of soil-applied atrazine and pendimethalin on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competitiveness in corn. Weed Technol. 12:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., and Harvey, R. G. et al. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci. 45:138–143.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., VanGessel, M. J., Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. 1999. Efficacy and crop response to glufosinate-based weed management in PAT-transformed sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:104–111.Google Scholar
Wright, R. J., DeVries, T. A., and Kamble, S. T. 1997. Pest management practices of crop consultants in the midwestern USA. J. Prod. Agric. 10:624–628.Google Scholar