Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:34:22.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Suppression for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max) Production Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David M. Alm ,
Loyd M. Wax  and
Edward W. Stoller
David M. Alm
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crops Protection Research Unit, Crop Sciences Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crops Protection Research Unit, Crop Sciences Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Edward W. Stoller*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crops Protection Research Unit, Crop Sciences Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reduced herbicide inputs can diminish pesticide movement into water supplies, enhancing environmental quality. A 3-yr study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and economic viability of reducing herbicide inputs by using ultra-low rates (ULRs), consisting of one-eighth the normal use rates of nicosulfuron plus thifensulfuron, delayed planting (DP), or both in corn and soybean. We compared the ULR treatment at the assigned cost of $12.35/ha with three other traditional types of weed management systems in both chisel plow and no-till production schemes. The ULR weed management system suppressed weeds enough to allow economical soybean production all 3 yr of the study, but this system proved viable only during the wettest year for corn. DP was economically competitive with the best systems in both crops under chisel-plowed tillage only in the driest year of the study.

Keywords

Nicosulfuronthifensulfuroncorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3417’soybean, Glycine max L. Merr. ‘Williams 82’Delayed plantingdroughtenvironmentlow-rate inputno-tilltillageDP, delayed plantingHI, high inputPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedULR, ultra-low rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 713 - 717
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

Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. J., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybeans. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
Cashman, C. M., Martin, M. A., and McCarl, B. A. 1981. Economic consequences of bans on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) herbicides commonly used on Indiana farms. Weed Sci. 29: 323–328.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D. E., Slife, F. W., and Swanson, E. R. 1977. Economic analysis of herbicide use in various crop sequences. Ill. Agric. Econ. 17: 8–13.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1993. Weed control and yield are equal in conventional, reduced-, and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max) after 11 years. Weed Technol. 7: 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Meade, J. A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7: 365–369.Google Scholar
Stemeroff, M., Swanton, C. J., Hamill, A. S., and Brown, R. H. 1988. Economics of herbicide use on corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max) in Ontario. Weed Technol. 2: 466–472.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. R. and Wax, L. M. 1989. Economic Incentives for Alternative Cropping Systems. Illinois Research, Fall/Winter, 1989. Urbana, IL: Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Willis, B. D. and Stoller, E. W. 1990. Weed suppression for vegetation management in corn and soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:9.Google Scholar