Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:58:48.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternatives to Atrazine for Weed Management in Processing Sweet Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Zubeyde Filiz Arslan ,
Martin M. Williams II ,
Roger Becker ,
Vincent A. Fritz ,
R. Ed Peachey  and
Tom L. Rabaey
Zubeyde Filiz Arslan
Affiliation:
Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey, and University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, Global Change and Photosynthesis Research, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Roger Becker
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
Vincent A. Fritz
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Horticultural Science, Southern Research and Outreach Center, 35838 120th Street, Waseca, MN 56093
R. Ed Peachey
Affiliation:
Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, 4017 Ag and Life Sciences Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331
Tom L. Rabaey
Affiliation:
General Mills Agricultural Research, 1201 N. 4th St., Le Sueur, MN 56058
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Atrazine has been the most widely used herbicide in North American processing sweet corn for decades; however, increased restrictions in recent years have reduced or eliminated atrazine use in certain production areas. The objective of this study was to identify the best stakeholder-derived weed management alternatives to atrazine in processing sweet corn. In field trials throughout the major production areas of processing sweet corn, including three states over 4 yr, 12 atrazine-free weed management treatments were compared to three standard atrazine-containing treatments and a weed-free check. Treatments varied with respect to herbicide mode of action, herbicide application timing, and interrow cultivation. All treatments included a PRE application of dimethenamid. No single weed species occurred across all sites; however, weeds observed in two or more sites included common lambsquarters, giant ragweed, morningglory species, velvetleaf, and wild-proso millet. Standard treatments containing both atrazine and mesotrione POST provided the most efficacious weed control among treatments and resulted in crop yields comparable to the weed-free check, thus demonstrating the value of atrazine in sweet corn production systems. Timely interrow cultivation in atrazine-free treatments did not consistently improve weed control. Only two atrazine-free treatments consistently resulted in weed control and crop yield comparable to standard treatments with atrazine POST: treatments with tembotrione POST either with or without interrow cultivation. Additional atrazine-free treatments with topramezone applied POST worked well in Oregon where small-seeded weed species were prevalent. This work demonstrates that certain atrazine-free weed management systems, based on input from the sweet corn growers and processors who would adopt this technology, are comparable in performance to standard atrazine-containing weed management systems.

Keywords

Atrazinedimethenamidmesotrionetembotrionecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.morningglory species, Ipomea spp.velvetleaf, Abutilon theoprasti Medik.wild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.sweet corn, Zea mays L.Herbicide regulationintegrated weed managementNorth Central RegionPacific Northwestsweet corn industry
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 531 - 539
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: William Vencill, University of Georgia.

References

Literature Cited

Abendroth, JA, Martin, AR, Roeth, FW (2006) Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol 20: 267–274 Google Scholar
Alex, JF (1964) Weeds of tomato and corn fields in two regions of Ontario. Weed Res 4: 308–318 Google Scholar
Anonymous (1994) Weed Management for Developing Countries. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 384 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2005) Memorandum for Topramezone. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-123009_18-Mar-05_a.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2015Google Scholar
Anonymous (2014) 2014 Guide for Weed Management. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Lincoln Extension. 287 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015) Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa—2015. File A1-20, FM 1712, revised January 2015. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Arslan, ZF, Uygur, FN (2013) Effect of some physical and mechanical weed control methods on some perennial weed species in tomato fields in Turkey. Page 178 in Proceedings of 16th EWRS Symposium. Samsun, Turkey: European Weed Research Society. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Bollman, JD, Boerboom, CM, Becker, RL, Fritz, VA (2008) Efficacy and tolerance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in sweet corn. Weed Technol 22: 666–674 Google Scholar
Chomas, AJ, Kells, JJ (2004) Triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in corn with pre-emergence herbicides. Weed Technol 18: 551–554 Google Scholar
Gal, I, Pusztai, P, Radics, L (2005) Non-chemical weed management in carrot. Page 154 in Proceedings of 13th EWRS Symposium. Bari, Italy: European Weed Research Society. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20093146887.html?resultNumber=0&q=Non-chemical+weed+management+in+carrot. Accessed April 26, 2016 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2016) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed February 24, 2016.Google Scholar
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (2014) High Priority Public Water Supply TMDLs Impaired for Atrazine and Simazine. http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/water-quality/watershed-management/tmdls/atrazine-simazine/index. Accessed April 13, 2015Google Scholar
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (2015) Atrazine Information. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/atrazine.aspx-mon. Accessed May 4, 2015Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service (2015) Vegetables 2014 Summary (January 2015). USDA–National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=CROPS. Accessed March 19, 2015Google Scholar
Nordby, JN, Williams, MM II Pataky, JK, Riechers, DE, Lutz, JD (2008) A common genetic basis in the sweet corn inbred Cr1 for cross-sensitivity to multiple cytochrome P450-metabolized herbicides. Weed Sci 56: 376–382 Google Scholar
Pataky, JK, Williams, MM II Headrick, JM, Nankam, C, du Toit, LJ, Michener, PM (2011) Observation from a quarter century of evaluating reactions of sweet corn hybrids in disease nurseries. Plant Dis 95: 1492–1506 Google Scholar
Recker, RA, Mitchell, PD, Stoltenberg, DE, Lauer, JG, Davis, VM (2015) Late-season weed escape survey reveals discontinued atrazine use associated with greater abundance of broadleaf weeds. Weed Technol 29: 154–463 Google Scholar
Schönhammer, A, Freitag, J, Koch, H (2006) Topramazone—a new highly selective herbicide compound for control of warm season grasses and dicotyledoneous weeds in maize. J Plant Dis Prot 20: 1023–1031 Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Kaastra, AC, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2012) Efficacy of topramezone and mesotrione for the control of annual grasses. Int Res J Agric Sci Soil Sci 2: 46–50 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2011) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) control in corn. Can J Plant Sci 91: 577–581 Google Scholar
Spandl, E, Rabaey, TL, Kells, JJ, Harvey, RG (1997) Application timing for weed control in corn (Zea mays) with dicamba tank mixtures. Weed Technol 11: 602–607 Google Scholar
Sutton, P, Richards, C, Buren, L, Glasgow, L (2002) Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag Sci 58: 981–984 Google Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Gulden, RH, Chandler, K (2007) A rationale for atrazine stewardship in corn. Weed Sci 55: 75–81 Google Scholar
Vangessel, M, Scott, B, Johnson, Q (2011) Does weed management for sweet corn differ with planting date? Page 101 in 2011 APS–IPPC Joint Meeting Abstracts of Presentations. Honolulu, HI: American Phytopathological Society. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Williams, MM II Boerboom, CM, Rabaey, TL (2010) Significance of atrazine in sweet corn weed management systems. Weed Technol 24: 139–142 Google Scholar
Williams, MM II Boydston, RA, Peachey, RE, Robinson, D (2011a) Significance of atrazine as a tank-mix partner with tembotrione. Weed Technol 25: 299–302 Google Scholar
Williams, MM II Boydston, RA, Peachey, RE, Robinson, D (2011b) Performance consistency of reduced atrazine use in sweet corn. Field Crop Res 121: 96–104 Google Scholar
Williams, MM II Pataky, JK (2010) Factors affecting differential sensitivity of sweet corn to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 58: 289–294 Google Scholar
Williams, MM II Rabaey, TL, Boerboom, CM (2008) Residual weeds of sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol 22: 646–653 Google Scholar
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (2014) http://datcp.wi.gov/Environment/Water_Quality/Atrazine/index.aspx Accessed: April 13, 2015 Google Scholar