Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:25:44.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Mesotrione Combinations with Standard Weed Control Programs in Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Cory M. Whaley ,
Gregory R. Armel ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Cory M. Whaley
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate total POST weed control in corn with mixtures of mesotrione, atrazine, and the commercial mixture of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine at registered and reduced rates. Treatments were compared with nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine POST, and S-metolachlor plus atrazine PRE alone and followed by (fb) nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine POST. All treatments controlled common lambsquarters 8 wk after the postemergence treatments (WAPT). Common ragweed control with POST mesotrione plus nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine combinations was greater than 89%. Mesotrione plus the registered rate of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine POST controlled common ragweed more effectively than the PRE treatment alone. Addition of atrazine to mesotrione improved common ragweed control by at least 38 percentage points over mesotrione alone. Nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine at the registered rate and in mixtures with mesotrione controlled morningglory species (pitted and ivyleaf morningglory) 89 to 91%. Large crabgrass control varied between 2002 and 2003. In 2002, large crabgrass control was 58 to 76% with all POST treatments, but in 2003, nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine POST alone controlled large crabgrass greater than 86%. Large crabgrass was more effectively controlled by treatments with S-metolachlor plus atrazine PRE than by the total POST treatments in 2002. Giant foxtail was controlled at least 97% with nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine treatments. S-metolachlor plus atrazine PRE fb nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine POST controlled all weed species greater than 85%. Corn yields by total POST treatment combinations of mesotrione plus either rate of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine were comparable to S-metolachlor plus atrazine PRE alone or fb nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine POST.

Keywords

AtrazinemesotrionenicosulfuronrimsulfuronS-metolachlorcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAmorningglory species, Ipomoea spp. # IPOSSpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa (L.) Roth # IPOLAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb DKC60-09 (RR2)’, ‘Pioneer 33B51’, ‘Pioneer 33G56’Reduced herbicide ratestotal postemergencesulfonylurea herbicidestriketone herbicidesDAP, days after plantingfb, followed byWATP, weeks after treatment with POST herbicides
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 605 - 611
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

Alm, D. M., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 2000. Weed suppression for weed management in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) production systems. Weed Technol. 14:713–717.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Mesotrione alone and in mixtures with glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 17:680–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, F. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1985. A reduced rate intensive management soybean weed control program. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:487.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H., Daniel, J. T., and Miller, B. R. 1999. ZA1296: a versatile postemergence broadleaf herbicide for corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39:65–66.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H. and Taylor, S. E. 2000. Postemergence performance of mesotrione in weed control programs. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:81.Google Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. B., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 14:495–501.Google 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
Chow, P. N. P. 1983. Herbicide mixtures containing BAS-9052 for weed control in flax (Linum usitatissimum). Weed Sci. 31:20–22.Google Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil test recommendations for Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 834.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1990. Johnsongrass control with DPX-V9360 and CGA-136872 in corn (Zea mays) in Virginia. Weed Technol. 4:615–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Foy, C. L. 1983. Compatibility of BAS-9052 OH with acifluorfen and bentazon. Weed Sci. 31:597–599.Google Scholar
Isaacs, M. A., Wilson, H. P., and Toler, J. E. 2002. Rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron-methyl combinations with selected postemergence broadleaf herbicides in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:664–668.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C., Young, B. G., and Matthews, J. L. 2002. Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol. 16:414–420.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., and Holman, C. S. 1999. Mesotrione programs. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 56:225–226.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G., Krausz, R. F., Khan, M., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Effect of nicosulfuron rate, adjuvant, and weed size on annual weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:696–702.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1998. Total postemergence weed control in imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:151–156.Google Scholar
Lackey, B. A., Beckett, T. H., Dennis, S., and Brownell, K. 1999. ZA 1296: a versatile preemergence and postemergence broadleaf herbicide for corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:116.Google Scholar
Mekki, M. and Leroux, G. D. 1994. Activity of nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and their mixture on field corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and seven weed species. Weed Technol. 8:436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menbere, H. and Ritter, R. L. 2001. Preemergence and postemergence control of triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:19.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
Ohmes, G. A., Kendig, J. A., Barham, R. L., and Ezell, P. M. 2000. Efficacy of ZA 1296 in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:225.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides for weed control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:995–1000.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Meade, J. A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7:365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, A. R. 1990. Vegetable weed control with minimal herbicide inputs. Hortscience 25:155–159.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Annual grass control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron combined with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 11:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H., and Dickey, D. A. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. 666 p.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Kapusta, G., Loux, M. M., Lueschen, W. E., Owen, M. D. K., Hageman, L. H., and Strachan, S. D. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci. 45:138–143.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn with glyphosate, halosulfuron, and mesotrione. Weed Technol. 18:826–834.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. and Young, J. M. 2000. Evaluation of AE F130360. N. Cent. Weed Sci., Res. Rep. 57:140–141.Google Scholar
Whaley, C. M. 2005. Mesotrione, Nicosulfuron Plus Rimsulfuron, and Atrazine Mixtures in Corn (Zea mays). Ph.D. dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Pp. 67–88.Google Scholar