Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:52:45.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Nicosulfuron Dosages and Timing on the Postemergence Control of Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) in Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Fontem Lum ,
David Chikoye  and
S. O. Adesiyan
A. Fontem Lum
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
David Chikoye*
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
S. O. Adesiyan
Affiliation:
University of Ibadan, Department of Crop Protection and Environmental Biology, Nigeria
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cogongrass is an aggressive perennial weed, which causes severe yield losses in major crops of the moist savanna of West Africa. Field studies were conducted from 2000 to 2002 at Alabata and Ilorin, Nigeria, to evaluate the influence of dosage and time of nicosulfuron application on the control of cogongrass and corn grain yield. Nicosulfuron dosages were 50, 100, 150, and 200 g ai/ha applied 1, 2, 3, or 4 wk after planting (WAP) corn. Hand-weeded and nonweeded treatments were the controls. Three to 4 wk after treatment and at final harvest, all plots that received nicosulfuron had significantly lower cogongrass shoot dry matter (DM) than the nonweeded control across locations in all years (P ≤ 0.01). Nicosulfuron increased corn grain yield at Alabata by 96% in 2000, 100% in 2001, and 34 to 54% in 2002, and at Ilorin by 79 to 83% in 2001 and 60 to 69% in 2002 when compared with the nonweeded control. The weeded control had corn grain yield similar to plots that received nicosulfuron at 200 g/ha at Alabata in 2001, 150 g/ha at Ilorin in 2001, 50 to 200 g/ha at Alabata in 2002, and 150 and 200 g/ha at Ilorin in 2002. There were negative linear relationships between corn DM, grain yield, and cogongrass shoot DM. Application of nicosulfuron at 1 or 2 WAP, when cogongrass was 22 to 27 cm tall, gave better grain yield and lower cogongrass shoot DM than at 3 or 4 WAP, when cogongrass was 36 to 45 cm tall. The study concludes that 150 to 200 g/ha of nicosulfuron applied at 1 or 2 WAP is effective for cogongrass control without adverse effect on corn grain yield.

Keywords

Nicosulfuroncogongrass, Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. # IMPCYcorn, Zea mays L.Crop injurysulfonylurea herbicideweed competitionDM, dry matterWAP, weeks after plantingWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 122 - 127
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Akobundu, I. O. 1980. Weed research at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and Research needs in Africa. Weed Sci. 28:439–445.Google Scholar
Akobundu, I. O. 1991. Imazapyr controls Imperata cylindrica in arable crops. in Proceedings of the 13th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society conference. Jarkata, Indonesia. Pp. 2–5.Google Scholar
Akobundu, I. O. 1993. Chemical Control of Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel) in Arable Fields. Weed Science Society of America Conference (Abstracts). Denver, CO: Weed Science Society of America. 16 p.Google Scholar
Anoka, U. A., Akobundu, I. O., and Okonkwo, S. N. C. 1991. Effect of Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Steud and Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit on growth and development of Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel. Agrofor. Syst 16:1–12.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Accent herbicide product label. Wilmington, DE: E. I. DuPont de Nemours, Agricultural Products.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C., O'Toole, B. M., and Andaloro, J. 1992. Effects of nicosulfuron on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:52–56.Google Scholar
Bruce, A. B. and Kells, J. J. 1997. Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 11:373–378.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and Carter, R. 1993. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) in the United States. Weed Technol. 7:1005–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9:356–361.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Ekeleme, F., and Ambe, J. T. 1999. Survey of distribution and farmers' perceptions of speargrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel] in cassava-based systems in West Africa. Int. J. Pest Manag 45:305–311.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Ekeleme, F., and Udensi, U. E. 2001. Cogongrass suppression by intercropping cover crops in corn/cassava systems. Weed Sci. 49:658–667.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Manyong, V. M., and Ekeleme, F. 2000. Characteristics of speargrass (Imperata cylindrica) dominated fields in West Africa: crops, soil properties, farmer perceptions and management strategies. Crop Prot 19:481–487.Google Scholar
Dozier, H., Gaffney, J. F., McDonald, S. K., Johnson, R. L., and Shilling, D. G. 1998. Cogongrass in the United States: history, ecology, impacts and management. Weed Technol. 12:737–743.Google Scholar
Feuillette, B., Marnotte, P., and Le-Bourgeois, T. 1994. The control of Imperata cylindrica . Agric. Dev 3:47–48.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. B., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Koch, W., Großmann, F., Weber, A., Lutzeyer, H. J., and Akobundu, I. O. 1990. Weeds as components of maize/cassava cropping systems. in von Oppen, M. ed. Standortgemaesse landwirtschaft in West Africa. Stuttgart, Germany: Universitaet Hohenheim. Pp. 283–298.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. N., and Wolfinger, R. C. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems. 633 p.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Brammall, R. A., and Bouw, W. J. 1995. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to nicosulfuron plus primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:280–283.Google Scholar
Perry, K. M., Evans, R., and Jeffrey, L. S. 1983. Competition between johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and corn (Zea mays). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 36:345.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Sequential applications control woolly cupgrass (Eriocloa villosa) and wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:537–542.Google Scholar
Shilling, D. G., Gaffney, J. F., and Waldrop, P. 1995. Cogongrass: problems and solutions. Ala. Treas. For 3:8–9.Google Scholar
Willard, T. R., Gaffney, J. F., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Influence of herbicide combinations and application technology on cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) control. Weed Technol. 11:76–80.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39:217–220.Google Scholar