Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:10:36.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Texas Panicum (Panicum texanum) Control in Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays) with Foramsulfuron, Glyphosate, Nicosulfuron, and Pendimethalin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric P. Prostko ,
Timothy L. Grey  and
Jerry W. Davis
Eric P. Prostko*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, 104 Research Way, Tifton, GA 31793
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, 104 Research Way, Tifton, GA 31793
Jerry W. Davis
Affiliation:
The University of Georgia, Experimental Statistics, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Texas panicum is considered to be the most troublesome weed of field corn in the Southeast. Field trials were conducted in Georgia in 2003 and 2004 to compare pendimethalin, nicosulfuron, foramsulfuron, and glyphosate for Texas panicum control in irrigated field corn and to determine which herbicide provided the greatest economic returns. Pendimethalin applied early POST (EPOST), 10 to 12 d after planting (DAP), controlled Texas panicum less than 35% late in the season and resulted in reduced corn yield and net returns in 2004. Glyphosate applied sequentially POST at 21 to 24 DAP and again late POST (LPOST) at 35 to 38 DAP controlled Texas panicum 82 to 94% late in the season compared with 43 to 80% control by nicosulfuron and foramsulfuron applied POST. Texas panicum control, corn yield, and net returns were similar with glyphosate applied POST and LPOST at 0.53 or 1.1 kg ai/ha. Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST was more effective than glyphosate POST, but net returns were greater only in 2004.

Keywords

Atrazineforamsulfuronnicosulfuronpendimethalinpotassium salt of glyphosateTexas panicum, Panicum texanum L. #3 PANTEcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DeKalb 67-60RR’Economicsherbicide-resistant cropspostemergenceAMS, ammonium sulfateCOC, crop oil concentrateGR, glyphosate resistantMSO, methylated seed oil
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 961 - 964
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

Anonymous, , 2005a. Accent herbicide specimen label. Wilmington, DE Du Pont.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005b. Acreage. Washington, D.C. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 24–25. Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0605.pdf. Accessed: October 4, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005c. Option herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer Corporation.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Growth characteristics and herbicide susceptibility of Texas panicum. Weed Sci. 17:91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coy, A. E., Day, J. L., and Rose, P. A. 2006. 2005 Georgia Corn Performance Tests. Griffin, GA: Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report #701. Web page: http://www.griffin.uga.edu/swvt/2005/cn05/RR701-contents.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2006.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1983. Longevity of weed seeds after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50-year buried seed study. Weed Sci. 31:264–270.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 2002. Comparison of glyphosate and other herbicides for weed control in corn (Zea mays): efficacy and economics. Weed Technol. 16:701–706.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1990. Efficacy and economic analysis of Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) management systems in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:754–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2002. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in strip-tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea) production. Peanut Sci. 29:141–145.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1993. In-furrow terbufos reduces field and sweet corn tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:934–939.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effect of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn under three environments. Weed Technol. 5:130–136.Google Scholar
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:371–378.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Grey, T. L. 2006. A comparison of Accent® and Option® for Texas panicum control in field corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:32.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J., Dowler, C. D., and Stansell, J. R. 1990. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) growth as affected by irrigation management and planting date. Weed Sci. 38:374–378.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004a. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn with glyphosate, halosulfuron, and mesotrione. Weed Technol. 18:826–834.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004b. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn with glyphosate and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 18:1049–1057.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Weed Science Society of America Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 231–234.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2004. Weed survey— southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:404–426.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. 1988. Relative tolerance of peanuts to alachlor and metolachlor. Peanut Sci. 15:53–56.Google Scholar