Compatibility and efficiency of in-row cultivation for weed management in corn (Zea mays)

被引:15
|
作者
Vangessel, MJ [1 ]
Schweizer, EE [1 ]
Lybecker, DW [1 ]
Westra, P [1 ]
机构
[1] USDA ARS,DEPT PLANT PATHOL & WEED SCI,FT COLLINS,CO 80522
关键词
bioeconomic weed management model; integrated weed management; reduced herbicide rates; row-crop cultivator; rotary hoe; WEEDCAM; Amaranthus retroflexus; Echinochloa crus-galli; Euphorbia dentata; Solanum sarrachoides; AMARE; ECHCG; EPHDE; SOLSA;
D O I
10.1017/S0890037X00024167
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Information on the effects of multiple weed management tactics in corn is needed to develop integrated weed management systems. The effectiveness and compatibility of an in-row cultivator as compared to a standard interrow cultivator used with reduced rates of a soil-applied herbicide, rotary hoeing, and/or a bioeconomic model for POST herbicide selection was examined, Weed control with a single rotary hoeing at corn emergence controlled annual weeds similarly to two rotary hoeings. One-third recommended use rate of alachlor controlled weeds similarly to a two-thirds rate. Reduced rates of alachlor controlled more weeds than rotary hoeing over 2 yr. The in-row cultivator required early-season weed control (rotary hoeing or reduced alachlor rate) for optimum efficacy. The in-row cultivator provided better weed control than the standard cultivator while the cost of operating the two cultivators was similar. Thus, the in-row cultivator was more efficient than the standard cultivator. Furthermore, less intensive early-season weed control was required with the in-row cultivator for maximum weed control as compared to the standard cultivator. Rotary hoeing plus the in-row cultivator provided similar weed control to other weed management tactics that required both soil-applied and POST herbicides. Gross margin was influenced more by corn yield than cost of weed management tactics.
引用
收藏
页码:754 / 760
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of mechanical weed management programs for corn (Zea mays)
    Mohler, CL
    Frisch, JC
    Pleasant, JM
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1997, 11 (01) : 123 - 131
  • [2] Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays)
    Culpepper, AS
    York, AC
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1999, 13 (02) : 324 - 333
  • [3] Weed Management Programs with Pyroxasulfone in Field Corn (Zea mays)
    Stephenson, Daniel O.
    Bond, Jason A.
    Griffin, James L.
    Landry, Randall L.
    Woolam, Brandi C.
    Edwards, H. Matthew
    Hardwick, John M.
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2017, 31 (04) : 496 - 502
  • [4] Weed management of Amaranthus spp. in corn (Zea mays)
    Vizantinopoulos, S
    Katranis, N
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1998, 12 (01) : 145 - 150
  • [5] Site-specific weed management in corn (Zea mays)
    Tredaway-Ducar, J
    Morgan, GD
    Wilkerson, JB
    Hart, WE
    Hayes, RM
    Mueller, TC
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 17 (04) : 711 - 717
  • [6] Mesotrione, acetochlor, and atrazine for weed management in corn (Zea mays)
    Armel, GR
    Wilson, HP
    Richardson, RJ
    Hines, TE
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 17 (02) : 284 - 290
  • [7] Effect of weed removal timing and row spacing on soil moisture in corn (Zea mays)
    Dalley, Caleb D.
    Bernards, Mark L.
    Kells, James J.
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2006, 20 (02) : 399 - 409
  • [8] Cultural systems to aid weed management in semiarid corn (Zea mays)
    Anderson, RL
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2000, 14 (03) : 630 - 634
  • [9] INTEGRATING MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN CORN (ZEA-MAYS)
    PLEASANT, JM
    BURT, RF
    FRISCH, JC
    [J]. WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1994, 8 (02) : 217 - 223
  • [10] Field evaluation of a bioeconomic model for weed management in corn (Zea mays)
    Buhler, DD
    King, RP
    Swinton, SM
    Gunsolus, JL
    Forcella, F
    [J]. WEED SCIENCE, 1996, 44 (04) : 915 - 923