Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-21T16:27:33.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timing of Total Postemergence Herbicide Applications to Maximize Weed Control and Corn (Zea mays) Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Boyd Carey  and
James J. Kells
J. Boyd Carey
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grass and broadleaf herbicides are available for effective, single-application total postemergence weed control in corn. Field experiments were conducted in 1992 and 1993 on sites with dense natural weed infestations to determine the effects of weed interference prior to herbicide application on corn yield. Nicosulfuron plus bromoxynil was applied at 5-, 10-, 15-, or 20-cm weed canopy heights in plots with or without weed interference. Crop injury was more severe when herbicides were applied to smaller corn. Herbicide applications made to 5-, 10-, or 15-cm tall weeds provided nearly complete weed control. Weed interference did not reduce corn height or grain yield when postemergence applications were made to weeds 10 cm or less in height. Weed interference reduced corn height and grain yield in 1992 when applications were made to 15-cm tall weeds even though weed control was nearly complete. Weed control was incomplete and corn height and grain yield were reduced when applications were delayed until weeds were 20 cm tall.

Keywords

Bromoxynil, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrilenicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamidecorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3753.’Interferenceweed biomassbromoxynilnicosulfuronABUTHAMAREAMBELCHEALSETFA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 356 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1993. Accent® herbicide product label. E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1993. Bromoxynil® Product Label. Rhône-Poulenc Ag Co., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1990. Accent® Herbicide. Tech. Bull. E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE 19898. 12 p.Google Scholar
4. Bell, D. T. and Koeppe, D. E. 1972. Noncompetitive effects of giant foxtail on growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bode, L. E. 1987. Spray application technology. p. 85–109 in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
6. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) . Weed Sci. 28:258–262.Google Scholar
7. Carey, J. B., Knoerr, P. B., and Kells, J. J. 1990. Herbicide interactions with nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 32:12.Google Scholar
8. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.Google Scholar
9. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) . Weed Sci. 26:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. 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
12. Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays) . Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:281–283.Google Scholar
14. Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31:318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. The interaction of soybean (Glycine max) and five weed species in the greenhouse. Weed Sci. 33:669–672.Google Scholar
17. Snipes, C. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) . Weed Sci. 30:553–556.Google Scholar
18. Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. p. 145–155 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar