Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:46:37.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Application Timings in Twin- and Single-row Corn and Soybean Spacings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kelly A. Nelson
Kelly A. Nelson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Novelty, MO 63460
*
Author's E-mail: nelsonke@missouri.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted in 2002 and 2003 to determine the effect of twin- and single-row spacing and POST glyphosate application timing on light interception, weed control, and grain yield of glyphosate-resistant corn and soybean. Row spacing did not affect light interception measured 10 to 11 wk after planting. Corn grain yield in 2002 was 1.0 Mg/ha higher in single rows compared with twin rows when averaged over glyphosate timing, but was unaffected by row spacing in 2003. Soybean grain yield was similar in 19- and 38-cm single rows, and single-row grain yield was 0.2 to 0.4 Mg/ha higher than the twin-row spacing. Corn grain yields were similar to the weed-free control when glyphosate was applied to weeds 10 to 15 cm tall in 2002 and 10 cm tall in 2003. Soybean yield was maximized by application of glyphosate to weeds 15 to 30 cm tall in 2002 and 60 cm tall in 2003.

Keywords

glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L. ‘Wilcross 3149’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 3701’Light interceptionweed interference
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 186 - 190
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

Al-Deeb, M. A. and Wilde, G. E. 2003. Effect of Bt corn expressing the Cry3Bb1 toxin for corn rootworm control on aboveground nontarget arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 32:1164–1170.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. H., Gantzer, C. J., and Brown, J. R. 1990. Soil physical properties after 100 years of continuous cultivation. J. Soil and Water Cons. 45:117–121.Google Scholar
Begna, S. H., Hamilton, R. I., Dwyer, L. M., Stewart, D. W., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., Foroutan-pour, K., and Smith, D. L. 2001. Weed biomass production response to plant spacing and corn (Zea mays) hybrids differing in canopy architecture. Weed Technol. 15:647–653.Google Scholar
Blanco-Canqui, H., Gantzer, C. J., Anderson, S. H., Alberts, E. E., and Ghidey, F. 2002. Saturated hydraulic conductivity and its impact on simulated runoff for claypan soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1596–1602.Google Scholar
Board, J. E., Kamal, M., and Harville, B. G. 1992. Temporal importance of greater light interception to increased yield in narrow-row soybean. Agron. J. 84:575–579.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2004. Interference effects of weed infested bands in or between crop rows on field corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 17:755–763.Google Scholar
Esbenshade, W. R., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Orzolek, M. D. 2001. Effect of row spacing and herbicides on burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus) control in herbicide-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:348–354.Google Scholar
Farnham, D. E. 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and hybrid effects on corn grain yield and moisture. Agron. J. 93:1049–1053.Google Scholar
Fischer, D. W. and Harvey, R. G. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and annual weed control in glyphosate-resistant field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:482–487.Google Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2002. Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:488–494.Google Scholar
Grau, C. R. and Radke, V. L. 1984. Effect of cultivars and cultural practices on Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean. Plant Dis. 68:56–58.Google Scholar
Hallman, A. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. 1999. Cost, average returns, and risk of switching to narrow row corn. J. Prod. Agric. 12:685–691.Google Scholar
Jaaffar, Z. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Canopy development, yield, and market quality in peanut as affected by genotype and planting pattern. Crop Sci. 28:299–305.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A. and Hoverstad, T. R. 2002. Effect of row spacing and herbicide application timing on weed control and grain yield in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:548–553.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.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Beam, J. B., Johnson, P. D., and Spears, J. F. 2001. Peanut response to prohexadione calcium in three seeding rate-row pattern planting systems. Agron. J. 93:232–236.Google Scholar
Kiniry, J. R. and Knievel, D. P. 1995. Response of maize seed number to solar radiation intercepted soon after anthesis. Agron. J. 87:228–234.Google Scholar
Kratochvil, R. and Taylor, R. 2004. Evaluation of twin row corn in Maryland and Delaware. [non-paginated CD-ROM]. Madison, WI Abstr. Am. Soc. Agron.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Jordan, D. L., Spears, J. F., Wells, R., Johnson, P. D., Barnes, J. S., Hurt, C. A., Brandenburg, R. L., and Bailey, J. E. 2004. Peanut response to planting pattern, row spacing, and irrigation. Agron. J. 96:1066–1072.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Weed control using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10:431–437.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Weed control in wide- and narrow-row soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox, imazethapyr, and CGA-277476 plus quizalofop. Weed Technol. 12:137–144.Google Scholar
Nielsen, R. L. 1988. Influence of hybrids and plant density on grain yield and stalk breakage in corn grown in 15-inch row spacing. J. Prod. Agric. 1:190–195.Google Scholar
Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration, and yield in corn. Agron J. 81:167–174.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1999. Software version 9.10. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (software version).Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004. Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol. 18:947–952.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9:113–118.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Influence of corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) yield. Weed Sci. 46:447–453.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2001. Effect of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth. Weed Technol. 15:413–418.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:274–281.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:169–174.Google Scholar
Yue, B., Wilde, G. E., and Arthur, F. 2003. Evaluation of thiamethoxam and imidacloprid as seed treatments to control European corn borer and Indianmeal moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larve. J. Econ. Entomol. 96:503–509.Google Scholar