Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T04:06:03.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time of Day Impacts Postemergence Weed Control in Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christie L. Stewart,
Robert E. Nurse and
Peter H. Sikkema
Christie L. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7
Robert E. Nurse*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2585 County Rd. 20 R.R. #2 Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nurser@agr.gc.ca.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted from 2005 to 2007 at two locations in southwestern Ontario to investigate how weed control in corn was affected by the time of day that herbicides were applied. Weed control following the application of six POST herbicides (atrazine, bromoxynil, dicamba/diflufenzopyr, glyphosate, glufosinate, and nicosulfuron) at 06:00, 09:00, 12:00, 15:00, 18:00, 21:00, and 24:00 h was assessed. For many weed species herbicide efficacy was reduced when applications were made at 06:00, 21:00, and 24:00 h. Velvetleaf was the most sensitive to the time of day effect, followed by common ragweed, common lambsquarters, and redroot pigweed. Annual grasses were not as sensitive to application timing; however, control of barnyardgrass and green foxtail was reduced in some environments at 06:00 h and after 21:00 h. Only in the most severe cases was the grain yield of corn reduced due to decreased weed control. Daily changes in air temperature, relative humidity, and light intensity that cause species-specific physiological changes may account for the variation in weed control throughout the day. The results of this research suggest that there is a strong species-specific influence of ambient air temperature, light intensity, and leaf orientation on the efficacy of POST herbicides. These results should aid growers in applying herbicides when they are most efficacious, thus reducing costs associated with reduced efficacy.

Keywords

Atrazinebromoxynildicambadiflufenzopyrglufosinateglyphosatenicosulfuronbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauvcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauvredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti L.corn, Zea mays L.Herbicide efficacytime of daypostemergence herbicides

Information

Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009, pp. 346 - 355
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

Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theoprasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci 26:393–395.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1979. Rhythmic leaf movements of some common weeds. Weed Sci 27:401–415.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007. Roundup Weathermax Herbicide Label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto. 75.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T. 1999. Weed control with glufosinate and influence of light on glufosinate activity. MS thesis. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. 26–82.Google Scholar
Chia, L. S., McRae, D. G., and Thompson, J. E. 1982. The light-dependence of paraquat-initiated membrane deterioration in bean plants. Evidence for the involvement of superoxide. Physiol. Plant 56:492–499.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatiband, K., and Loughin, T. M. 2001. Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci 49:8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, D. L. and Andersen, R. N. 1976. Effectiveness of bentazon applied at various times of the day. Weed Sci 24:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O. 2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manage. Sci 61:211–218.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Environmental effects on CGA-248757 and flumiclorac efficacy/soybean tolerance. Weed Sci 49:668–674.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1991. Effect of application factors on efficacy of fluazifop-P-butyl in flax. Weed Technol 5:504–508.Google Scholar
Hess, F. D. and Falk, R. H. 1990. Herbicide deposition on leaf surfaces. Weed Sci 38:280–288.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 2002. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci 50:157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, J. P. and Peeper, T. F. 2003. MON 37500 application timing affects cheat (Bromus secalinus) control and winter wheat. Weed Sci 51:231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan, M. and Zúñiga, M. 2001. Dew and spray volume effect on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol 15:590–593.Google Scholar
Kraatz, G. W. and Andersen, R. N. 1980. Leaf movements in sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in relation to herbicide response. Weed Sci 28:551–556.Google Scholar
Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci 30:520–526.Google Scholar
Madafiglio, G. P., Medd, R. W., Cornish, P. S., and Van de Ven, R. 2000. Temperature-mediated responses of flumetsulam and metosulam on Raphanus raphanistrum . Weed Res 40:387–395.Google Scholar
Martinson, K. B., Durgan, B. R., Gunsolus, J. L., and Sothern, R. B. 2005. Time of day of application effect on glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy. Online. Crop Manage. DOI: 10.1094/CM-2005-0718-02-RS.Google Scholar
Martinson, K. B., Sothern, R. B., Koukkari, W. L., Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. 2002. Circadian response of annual weeds to glyphosate and glufosinate. Chronobiol. Int 19:405–422.Google Scholar
Miller, R., Martinson, K. B., Sothern, R. B., Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. 2003. Circadian response of annual weeds in a natural setting to high and low application doses of four herbicides with different modes of action. Chronobiol. Int 20:299–324.Google Scholar
Mohr, K., Sellers, B. A., and Smeda, R. J. 2007. Application time of day influences glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol 21:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Pudelko, J., and Adamczewski, K. A. 1975. Influence of climate and additives on bentazon. Weed Sci 23:504–507.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliver, L. R., and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Diurnal leaf movement effects on spray interception and glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol 13:466–470.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E., Swanton, C. J., Tardif, F., and Sikkema, P. H. 2006. Weed control and yield are improved when glyphosate is preceded by a residual herbicide in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Crop Prot 25:1174–1179.Google Scholar
Price, C. E. 1983. The effect of environment on foliage uptake and translocation of herbicides. Aspect Appl. Biol 4:157–169.Google Scholar
Røyneberg, T., Balke, N. E., and Lund-Høie, K. 1992. Effects of adjuvants and temperature on glyphosate absorption by cultured cells of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.). Weed Res 32:419–428.Google Scholar
Sanyal, D., Bhowmik, P. C., and Reddy, K. N. 2006. Leaf characteristics and surfactant affect primisulfuron droplet spread in three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci 54:16–22.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2003. Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol 17:302–306.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. D. and Singh, M. 2001. Environmental factors affecting absorption and bio-efficacy of glyphosate in Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Crop Prot 20:511–516.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shreshta, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop Prod 2:9–29.Google Scholar
Waltz, A. L., Martin, A. R., Roeth, F. W., and Lindquist, J. L. 2004. Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf varies with application time of day. Weed Technol 18:931–939.Google Scholar
Willingham, G. L. and Graham, L. L. 1988. Influence of environmental factors and adjuvants on the foliar penetration of acifluorfen in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti): an analysis using the fractional factorial design. Weed Sci 36:824–829.Google Scholar