Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:53:48.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rotary Hoeing Substitutes for Two-Thirds Rate of Soil-Applied Herbicide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frank Forcella
Frank Forcella*
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dose–response curves for acetochlor with and without timely rotary hoeing (two passes) were derived for corn (Zea mays) fields over 2 yr. The fields were dominated by green foxtail (Setaria viridis), which constituted 73 to 86% of the weed vegetation, but also contained minor populations of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). In the absence of herbicide, rotary hoeing achieved about 50% weed control. In the absence of rotary hoeing, weed control averaged > 90% at the full label rate of acetochlor (3 kg ai/ha on clay loam soil). With two timely rotary hoeings, however, this same level of control was achieved with only 1 kg/ha acetochlor. Given the suite of weed species present in these experiments, timely rotary hoeing substituted for 67% of the label rate of acetochlor. Timeliness of rotary hoeing operations also provided consistency of results from one year to the next.

Keywords

Acetochlor, 2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)acetamidecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIPennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pensylvanicum (L.) # POLPYredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.corn, Zea mays L.Integrated weed managementinterrow cultivationpreemergence herbicideseedling emergencetimeliness
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 298 - 303
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. 1997. Statistix for Windows. Tallahassee, FL: Analytical Software. 333 p.Google Scholar
Bowman, G. 1997. Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Management Tools. Burlington, VT: Sustainable Agriculture Publications, University of Vermont. 128 p.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J. 87: 507–512.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1998. Real-time assessment of seed dormancy and seedling growth for weed management. Seed Sci. Res. 8: 201–209.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybean. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5: 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L., Becker, R. L., Durgan, B. R., Lueschen, W., and Dexter, A. G. 1998. Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops—1998. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension Service BU-3157-S. 81 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Hoverstad, T. R., and Greenwald, R. E. 1998. Integrated weed management using narrow corn row spacing, herbicides, and cultivation. Agron. J. 90: 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, B. 1997. Minnesota Custom Farm Survey. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension Service FS-3700-GO. 2 p.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oriade, C. A. and Forcella, F. 1998. Maximizing efficacy and economics of mechanical weed control in row crops through forecasts of weed emergence. J. Crop Prod. 2: 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 13: 542–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar