Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:22:36.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual Herbicides used in Combination with Glyphosate and Glufosinate in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brent E. Tharp  and
James J. Kells
Brent E. Tharp
Affiliation:
Golden Harvest Seeds, Cordova, IL 61242
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management strategies are needed to control weeds in corn that emerge after postemergence (POST) application of glyphosate or glufosinate. Field trials were conducted from 1996 to 1999 to determine if residual herbicides could be used with glyphosate or glufosinate to provide season-long weed control in glyphosate-resistant or glufosinate-resistant corn. Preemergence (PRE) applications of several residual herbicides followed by POST applications of glyphosate or glufosinate were compared with POST tank mixtures of glyphosate or glufosinate with residual herbicides. All residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate, when compared with glyphosate alone, increased control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters by an average of 20% and resulted in a 4 to 19% increase in control of giant foxtail. Each residual herbicide tank mixture with glufosinate, when compared with glufosinate alone, increased control of common ragweed and giant foxtail. In most instances, weed control was similar for total POST and for PRE followed by POST systems. Velvetleaf control was reduced by 12% when glyphosate was tank mixed with a half rate of atrazine compared with a full rate of atrazine. Common lambsquarters control was reduced by 13% when glyphosate was tank mixed with a half vs. a full rate of acetochlor. Glufosinate tank mixed with half rates of acetochlor + atrazine, flumetsulam, or pendimethalin reduced control of velvetleaf compared with the full rate of these products. Corn yields were not affected by residual herbicide application timings or rates of residual herbicides.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazineflumetsulamglufosinateglyphosatependimethalincommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi L. # SETFAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DK 493GR’, ‘DK 493RR’Glufosinate-resistant cornglyphosate-resistant cornherbicide-tolerant cropsmetolachlorsoil-applied herbicidesPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 274 - 281
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

Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 394–398.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45: 276–282.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control in soybean (Glycine max) with reduced bentazon rates and cultivation. Weed Sci. 41: 447–453.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
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 324–333.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2000. Weed interference in glyphosate resistant corn and soybeans as influenced by treatment timing and row spacing. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:12.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 354–360.Google Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., Sprankle, P. L., and Probst, N. J. 1999. Determining the critical period of weed interference in glyphosate-tolerant corn: results of a multi-state study. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39: 55.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Reese, P. F. Jr., Flint, J. L., et al. 1998. Early season weed control in Roundup Ready soybean: effect on yield. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:130.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13: 331–334.Google Scholar
Kuehl, R. O. 1994. Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 686 p.Google Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 12–21.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1997. Effect of timing and adjuvants on the efficacy of reduced herbicide rates for sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 720–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, R. J., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Calvin, D. D. 1996. Herbicide susceptibility and biological fitness of triazine-resistant and susceptible common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 44: 517–522.Google Scholar
Selleck, G. W. and Baird, D. D. 1981. Antagonism with glyphosate and residual herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 29: 185–190.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. 1989. Transformation of the herbicide [14C] glufosinate in soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 37: 267–271.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975a. Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci. 23: 224–228.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975b. Adsorption, mobility, and microbial degradation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci. 23: 229–234.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.Google Scholar
Tebbe, C. C. and Reber, H. H. 1991. Degradation of (C14) phosphinothricin (glufosinate) in soil under laboratory conditions: effects of concentration and soil amendments on 14CO2 production. Biol. Fertil. Soils 11: 62–67.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13: 807–813.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., VanGessel, M. J., Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. 1999. Efficacy and crop response to glufosinate-based weed management in PAT-transformed sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 104–111.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33: 531–536.Google Scholar