Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:53:11.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Weed Density and Application Timing on Weed Control and Corn Grain Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew W. Myers ,
William S. Curran ,
Mark J. Vangessel ,
Bradley A. Majek ,
Barbara A. Scott ,
David A. Mortensen ,
Dennis D. Calvin ,
Heather D. Karsten  and
Gregory W. Roth
Matthew W. Myers*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
William S. Curran
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sciences Department, University of Delaware, Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE 19947
Bradley A. Majek
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ 08032
Barbara A. Scott
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sciences Department, University of Delaware, Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE 19947
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Dennis D. Calvin
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Heather D. Karsten
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Gregory W. Roth
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mwm133@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 2-yr experiment repeated at five locations across the northeastern United States evaluated the effect of weed density and time of glyphosate application on weed control and corn grain yield using a single postemergence (POST) application. Three weed densities, designed to reduce corn yields by 10, 25, and 50%, were established across the locations, using forage sorghum as a surrogate weed. At each weed density, a single application of glyphosate at 1.12 kg ai/ha was applied to glyphosate-resistant corn at the V2, V4, V6, and V8 growth stages. At low and medium weed densities, the V4 through V8 applications provided nearly complete weed control and yields equivalent to the weed-free treatment. Weed biomass and the potential for weed seed production from subsequent weed emergence made the V2 timing less effective. At high weed densities, the V4 followed by the V6 timing provided the most effective weed control, while maintaining corn yield. Weed competition from subsequent weed emergence in the V2 application and the duration of weed competition in the V8 timing reduced yield on average by 12 and 15%, respectively. This research shows that single POST applications can be successful but weed density and herbicide timing are key elements.

Keywords

Glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L.forage sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) MoenchGlyphosate-resistant cornherbicide application timingpostemergence weed controlweed competitionweed densityPOST, postemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 102 - 107
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

Baker, D. B. 1985. Regional water quality impacts of intensive row-crop agriculture: a Lake Erie Basin case study. J. Soil Conserv 40:125–132.Google Scholar
Baker, J. L. and Johnson, H. P. 1979. The effects of tillage systems on pesticides in runoff from small watersheds. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 22:554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1980. Shattercane control in narrow-row soybeans. Agron. J 72:753–757.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
Fellows, G. M. 1990. Shattercane Distribution, Interference, and Economic Impact in Nebraska. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1990. Johnsongrass control with DPX-V9360 and CGA-136872 in corn in Virginia. Weed Technol. 4:615–619.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 corn and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., and Cardina, J. et al. 2003. Effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Technol. 17:821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:737–744.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Liu, F. H. and O'Connell, N. V. 2002. Off-site movement of surface-applied simazine from a citrus orchard as affected by irrigation incorporation. Weed Sci. 50:672–676.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Agricultural Chemical Usage. Washington, DC: Agricultural Statistics Board and USDA.Google Scholar
Neeser, C., Dieleman, J. A., Krishnan, G., Mortensen, D. A., Rawlinson, J. T., Martin, A. R., and Bills, L. B. 2004. WeedSOFT™: a weed management decision support system. Weed Sci. 52:115–122.Google 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 postemergence applications of atrazine in maize. J. Environ. Qual. 21:567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., and Benson, G. O. 1993. How a Corn Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Publication Special Rep. 48.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M., Srasha, B. S., Trimmell, D., and White, M. D. 1988. Controlled release of herbicides. in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.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
Troiano, J. and Garretson, C. 1998. Movement of simazine in runoff water from citrus orchard row middles as affected by mechanical incorporation. J. Environ. Qual. 27:488–494.Google Scholar
Vesecky, J. F., Feltner, K. C., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1973. Wild cane and forage sorghum competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 21:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar