Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:42:22.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Larry S. Tapia,
Thomas T. Bauman,
Robert G. Harvey,
James J. Kells,
George Kapusta,
Mark M. Loux,
William E. Lueschen,
Michael D. K. Owen,
Larry H. Hageman and
Stephen D. Strachan
Larry S. Tapia
Affiliation:
Du Pont Agricultural Products, Carmel, IN 46032
Thomas T. Bauman
Affiliation:
Botany and Plant Pathology Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47970
Robert G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
James J. Kells
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science and Pesticide Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
George Kapusta
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural and Crop Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
William E. Lueschen
Affiliation:
Southwest Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Lamberton, MN 56152
Michael D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Larry H. Hageman
Affiliation:
Du Pont Agricultural Products, Rochelle, IL 61068
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant foxtail, woolly cupgrass, and wild-proso millet infest millions of hectares of land devoted to corn production in the midwestern U.S. Control of these species and effects on corn grain yield were evaluated at various timings using POST applications of nicosulfuron vs. applications of various PRE herbicides at 17 locations across the midwestern U.S. in 1992 and 1993. Nicosulfuron applied to 5 to 10 cm giant foxtail and woolly cupgrass provided greater control than that observed with selected PRE herbicides. Giant foxtail control with nicosulfuron averaged 88%, and control of woolly cupgrass averaged 77% across all sites. Nicosulfuron, applied to 5 to 10 cm wild-proso millet, provided a level of control similar to that of selected PRE herbicides. Corn grain yield was greater when giant foxtail was controlled POST with nicosulfuron vs. PRE control with selected soil-applied herbicides. Corn grain yields were similar when nicosulfuron was applied POST to 5 to 10 cm woolly cupgrass or wild-proso millet vs. PRE control of these grass weeds. Across a broad range of geographical locations, nicosulfuron, applied POST to 5 to 10 cm tall grass, provided greater or similar levels of weed control vs. the selected PRE herbicides, with no deleterious effect on grain yield.

Keywords

AlachlormetolachlorcompetitionnicosulfuronsulfonylureasERBVIPANMISETFANicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N, N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamidegiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAwild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. PANMIwoolly cupgrass, Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) ERBVICorn, Zea mays L.

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997, pp. 138 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Anonymous. 1994. United States Department of Agriculture corn production by state. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Series. 45 p.Google Scholar
Clements, S. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Plant competition—an analysis of community functions. Publication No. 398. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute, 340 p.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Banken, K. R. 1994. Weed seedling growth models identify optimum windows for POST control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 141.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G., Krausz, R. F., Khan, M., and Matthews, J. L. 1995. The effect of nicosulfuron rate, adjuvant, and weed size on annual weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8: 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1961. Competition of Setaria faberii with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10: 26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13: 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17: 281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuratle, H., Hanagan, M., Kenyon, W. H., and Strachan, S. D. 1988. DPX-V9360—a new selective POST grass herbicide for corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 28: 12–13.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Effects of annual grass weeds on yield of corn. Agron. J. 49: 551–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1964. Losses caused by weeds in corn and sorghum. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 20: 23.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39: 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32: 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed Crop Competition—a Review. International Plant Protection Center. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 200 p.Google Scholar