Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn

被引:40
|
作者
Tharp, BE [1 ]
Kells, JJ [1 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Dept Crop & Soil Sci, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
关键词
glufosinate; 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid; glyphosate; N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine; corn; Zea mays L-'DK 493GR'; herbicide-tolerant crops; Abutilon theophrasti; Amaranthus retroflexus; Chenopodium album; Setaria faberi; Zea mays; ABUTH; AMARE; CHEAL; SETFA;
D O I
10.1017/S0890037X00042263
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Field trials were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to determine the influence of glufosinate and glyphosate application rates, application timings, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn yield. Glufosinate-ammonium rates ranged from 0.18 to 0.41 kg ai/ha, while rates for the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate ranged from 0.21 to 0.84 kg ae/ha. Increasing rates of glufosinate and glyphosate often improved weed control. Control of many of the weed species was improved by delaying herbicide application timing. Weed control was most consistent from late postemergence (LPOST) applications of glufosinate at 0.41 kg ai/ha or glyphosate at 0.84 kg ae/ha. Corn yields were reduced due to incomplete weed control when the lowest rate of glufosinate was applied. Weed control from early postemergence (EPOST) glufosinate and glyphosate applications followed by cultivation was similar to weed control from LPOST glufosinate and glyphosate applications without cultivation. Interrow cultivation following glufosinate or glyphosate application did not affect corn yield.
引用
收藏
页码:807 / 813
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Evaluation of postemergence weed control strategies in herbicide-resistant isolines of corn (Zea mays)
    Zuver, KA
    Bernards, ML
    Kells, JJ
    Sprague, CL
    Medlin, CR
    Loux, MM
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2006, 20 (01) : 172 - 178
  • [32] Effect of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth
    Tharp, BE
    Kells, JJ
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2001, 15 (03) : 413 - 418
  • [33] Small-grain cover crop interaction with glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays)
    Norsworthy, JK
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2004, 18 (01) : 52 - 59
  • [34] WEED-CONTROL IN CORN (ZEA-MAYS) WITH PRIMISULFURON AS INFLUENCED BY RATE, TIMING, AND HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS
    NGOUAJIO, M
    HAGOOD, ES
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1993, 7 (01) : 65 - 69
  • [35] PRE herbicides influence critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant corn
    Ulusoy, Ayse Nur
    Osipitan, O. Adewale
    Scott, Jon
    Jhala, Amit J.
    Lawrence, Nevin C.
    Knezevic, Stevan Z.
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2021, 35 (02) : 271 - 278
  • [36] Effect of glyphosate and MSMA application timing on weed control, fruiting patterns, and yield in glyphosate-resistant cotton
    Edenfield, MW
    Brecke, BJ
    Colvin, DL
    Dusky, JA
    Shilling, DG
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 19 (02) : 224 - 230
  • [37] TIMING OF TOTAL POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS TO MAXIMIZE WEED-CONTROL AND CORN (ZEA-MAYS) YIELD
    CAREY, JB
    KELLS, JJ
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1995, 9 (02) : 356 - 361
  • [38] Interaction of 2,4-D or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea mays L.)
    Ganie, Zahoor A.
    Jhala, Amit J.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE, 2017, 8
  • [39] Influence of Glyphosate/Dicamba Application Rate and Timing on the Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed in Glyphosate/Dicamba-Resistant Soybean
    Hedges, Brittany K.
    Soltani, Nader
    Hooker, David C.
    Robinson, Darren E.
    Sikkema, Peter H.
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 32 (06) : 678 - 682
  • [40] Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control
    Johnson, BC
    Young, BG
    Matthews, JL
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2002, 16 (02) : 414 - 420