Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:40:30.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between-Row Mowing + Banded Herbicide to Control Annual Weeds and Reduce Herbicide Use in No-till Soybean (Glycine max) and Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald ,
Newell R. Kitchen  and
Kenneth A. Sudduth
William W. Donald*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 269 Agric. Engr. Bldg., UMC, Columbia, MO 65211
Newell R. Kitchen
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 269 Agric. Engr. Bldg., UMC, Columbia, MO 65211
Kenneth A. Sudduth
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 269 Agric. Engr. Bldg., UMC, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alternative methods are needed to control weeds in no-till corn and soybean which minimize herbicide contamination of surface or ground water. The objective of this research was to determine whether between-row (BR) mowing + band-applied herbicide could help reduce herbicide use, without sacrificing summer annual weed control or yield, in no-till soybean and field corn. Glyphosate was applied shortly before or at planting to control emerged winter annual weeds in all treatments. In the BR mowing weed management system, the band-applied soil residual herbicides imazaquin + alachlor in soybean or atrazine + alachlor in corn were applied shortly before or after planting followed by two or more between-row mowings to control summer annual weeds. Annual weeds were first mowed when they were about 8 cm tall and again just before crop canopy closure. Between-row mowing weeds very close to the soil surface two or three times killed or suppressed summer annual grass and broadleaf weeds, chiefly giant foxtail, common cocklebur, and horseweed, when timed properly. The BR mowing weed management system increased yield above a weedy check in these no-till crops. It also controlled weeds and yielded as well as or better than broadcast-applied herbicide at the same rates. Use of soil residual herbicides to control summer annual weeds was reduced 50% by banding because only 50% of the field area was sprayed.

Keywords

Alachlor, atrazineglyphosateimazaquincommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTcorn, Zea mays (L.) # ZEAMX, ‘Pioneer 3394’; giant foxtail, Setaria faberii (L.) Beauv. # SETFAhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq # CONCAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. # GLYMA, ‘Pioneer 9461’Band applicationdefoliationmowingmechanical weed controlno-tillno-tillagetillagetoppingDAP, days after plantingBR, between row
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 576 - 584
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. 1999. Agricultural Chemical Usage 1998 Field Crops Summary. USDA, Nat. Agric. Stat. Serv., Econ. Res. Serv. Ag Ch 1 (99). 140 p.Google Scholar
Baker, J. L. and Johnson, H. P. 1983. Evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs from field studies. In Bailey, G. W. and Schaller, F. W., eds. Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, NY. pp. 96–135.Google Scholar
Brock, B. G. 1982. Weed control versus soil erosion control. J. Soil Water Conserv. 37: 73–76.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2000a. Alternative ways to control weeds between rows in weeded check plots in Corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2000b. Between row mowing + In row banded herbicide for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 48: 487–500.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2000c. Timing and frequency of between row mowing and band-applied herbicide for annual weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 92: 1013–1019 Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. S. 1998. The role of best management practices in reducing triazine runoff. In Ballantine, L. G., McFarland, J. E., and Hackett, D. S., eds. Triazine Herbicides: Risk Assessment. Washington, DC, American Chemical Society. pp. 49–59.Google Scholar
Gaynor, J. D. and Van Wesenbeeck, I. J. 1995. Effects of band widths on atrazine, metribuzin, and metolachlor runoff. Weed Technol. 9: 107–112.Google Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., Tan, C. S., Drury, C. F., Van Wesenbeeck, I. J., and Welacky, T. W. 1995. Atrazine in surface and subsurface runoff as affected by cultural practices. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 30: 513–531.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. A., Kapusta, G., and Mason, D.J.S. 1985. Effect of duration and type of natural weed infestations on soybean yield. Agron. J. 77: 725–729.Google Scholar
Kitchen, N. R., Hughes, D. F., Sudduth, K. A., and Birrell, S. J. 1995. Comparison of variable rate to single rate nitrogen fertilizer application: Corn production and residual soil NO3-N. In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Proc. Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. 2nd Int. Conf., Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI. pp. 425–439.Google Scholar
Larson, S. J., Capel, P. D., and Majewski, M. S. 1997. Pesticides in Surface Waters. Distribution, Trends, and Governing Factors. Chelsea, Michigan, Ann Arbor Press, Inc. pp. 217–234.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J., Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L., and Overcash, M. R., eds. 1987. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality. Nitrates and Pesticides. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 292 p.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J. 1993. Agricultural best management practices for water pollution control: current issues. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46: 223–231.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Patterson, D. T. 1980. Ecological factors affecting weed competition in soybeans. In Corbin, F. T., ed. World Soybean Research Conference II: Proceedings. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 371–392.Google Scholar
Mills, K., Pauley, V., and Oxenhandler, S., eds. 1995. 1995 Missouri Farm Facts. Missouri Dept. of Agriculture, Jefferson City MO. and USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. p. 38.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Coble, H. D. 1989. The influence of soil water content on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 76–83.Google Scholar
Mutchler, C. K. and Greer, J. D. 1984. Reduced tillage for soybean. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engin. 27: 1364–1369.Google Scholar
Renard, K. G., Laflen, J. M., Foster, G. R., and McCool, D. K. 1994. The revised universal soil loss equation. In Lal, R., ed. Soil Erosion Research Methods. 2nd ed. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
SPSS. 1998. SPSS Base 8.0 User's Guide and SPSS Applications Guide. SPSS Inc., 444 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Sudduth, K. A., Kitchen, N. R., Hughes, D. F., and Drummond, S. T. 1995. Electromagnetic induction sensing as an indicator of productivity on claypan soils. In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Proc. Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI. pp. 671–681.Google Scholar