Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T10:42:21.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Control in Corn (Zea mays) with Single Preemergence and Sequential Applications of Residual Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Christy L. Sprague  and
Aaron G. Hager
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Aaron G. Hager
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: csprague@uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of common waterhemp in corn with chloroacetamide and dinitroaniline herbicides can be inconsistent. Common waterhemp control by dimethenamid, S-metalochlor, pendimethalin, and three formulations of acetochlor, applied alone or with atrazine as single preemergence (PRE) or sequential PRE followed by postemergence (POST) treatment, was determined. The manufacturer's suggested use rate (1 time) of PRE herbicides was compared with sequential applications (0.66 time PRE followed by 0.34 time POST) of herbicides. POST applications included dicamba to control emerged common waterhemp. Single and sequential herbicide applications controlled common waterhemp at least 98%, 28 d after planting (DAP). But herbicides applied sequentially were more effective than PRE treatments by 56 DAP. Encapsulated acetochlor formulations controlled common waterhemp at least 85% by 56 DAP regardless of application method. Sequential applications of S-metolachlor controlled common waterhemp greater than 83%. Atrazine improved common waterhemp control regardless of herbicide or application method 56 DAP. Sequential applications of dimethenamid or S-metolachlor alone or with atrazine were more effective than single PRE applications of these herbicides.

Keywords

Acetochlor; atrazine; chloroacetamide; dimethenamid; dinitroaniline; pendimethalin; S-metalochlor; common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer #3 AMATA; corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 34R07’Chloroacetamidedinitroanilineherbicide application timingsequential applicationsDAP, days after planting; POST, postemergence; PRE, preemergence

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 755 - 761
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Buhler, D. D., Koskinen, W. C., Schreiber, M. M., and Gan, J. 1994. Dissipation of alachlor, metolachlor and atrazine from starch-encapsulated formulations in a sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 42: 411–417.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81: 665–672.Google Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center. 2000. National Crop Residue Management Survey—2000 Survey Results. West Lafayette, IN: Conservation Technology Information Center.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1990. Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbance. Weed Sci. 38: 504–510.Google Scholar
Fleming, G. F., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Felsot, A. S. 1992. Movement of alachlor and metribuzin from controlled release formulations in a sandy soil. Weed Sci. 40: 606–613.Google Scholar
Hager, A., Wax, L., and Simmons, F. W. 1998. Waterhemp management in Illinois agronomic crops. In Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. Champaign, IL: Univeristy of Illinois. pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Simmons, F. W. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amarnathus rudis Sauer) management with soil-applied herbicides in soybean [Glyine max (L.) Merr]. Crop Prot. 21: 277–283.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47: 578–584.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11: 13–18.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 192–195.Google Scholar
Illinois Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Illinois Agricultural Statistics—2001 Bulletin. Springfield, IL: Illinois Agricultural Statistics Service. 54 p.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.Google 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.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: 537–542.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. M., and Bensen, G. O. 1986. How a Corn Plant Develops. Special Report 48. Ames, IA: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11: 11–31.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an acetolactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Res. 37: 93–101.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Simmons, F. W., Bollero, G., Hager, A., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Tillage and cropping effects on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and seed bank distribution over four years. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41: 321.Google Scholar
Watts, J. R., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. S., and Toler, J. E. 1997. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with single and sequential herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 11: 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest: distribution, importance and management. Proc. Iowa Integr. Crop Manag. Conf. 7: 239–242.Google Scholar