Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:07:16.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Site-Specific Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joyce Tredaway-Ducar ,
Gaylon D. Morgan ,
John B. Wilkerson ,
William E. Hart ,
Robert M. Hayes  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Joyce Tredaway-Ducar
Affiliation:
Berry College, Mount Berry, GA 30149
Gaylon D. Morgan*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, P.O. Box 14, College Station, TX 77843
John B. Wilkerson
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems Engineering & Environmental Science, University of Tennessee
William E. Hart
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems Engineering & Environmental Science, University of Tennessee
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences & Landscape Systems, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences & Landscape Systems, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: gmorgan@ag.tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Site-specific weed management can increase crop production efficiency by minimizing herbicide input costs without compromising crop yields. A reduction in herbicide inputs resulting from site-specific weed management may also decrease the probability level of nonpoint pollution compared with conventional herbicide applications. A 4.5-ha field was selected to compare site-specific and conventional weed management techniques in 1997 and 1998 at Knoxville, TN. Variable rate applications (VRAs) of atrazine preemergence (PRE) followed by dicamba postemergence (POST) were investigated for the reduction of herbicide inputs and their resulting impact on weed control and corn yield. VRAs of atrazine were on the basis of weed density data collected in 1996. VRAs of dicamba were according to common cocklebur density evaluations within the field. Compared with conventional applications, atrazine usage was decreased by 43 and 32% in the site-specific application treatments in 1997 and 1998, respectively. VRAs of dicamba reduced herbicide inputs by greater than 45% for 1997 and 1998. Corn yields were similar for the conventional and site-specific treatments in both years. On the basis of these data, site-specific herbicide applications have the greatest potential and least risk for managing weeds when POST or PRE + POST variable rate herbicide applications are used.

Keywords

Atrazinedicambacommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb 689’Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nashbroadleaf signalgrassgeographical information systemsglobal positioning systemsvariable rate applicationDGPS, differential global positioning systemGIS, geographic information systemOM, organic matterPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceVRA, variable rate application
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 711 - 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., 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
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:258–268.Google Scholar
Clark, R. L. and McGuckin, R. L. 1996. Variable rate application equipment for precision farming. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 20/1:186–197.Google Scholar
Colliver, C. T., Maxwell, B. D., Tyler, D. A., Roberts, D. W., and Long, D. S. 1996. Georeferencing wild oat infestations in small grains: accuracy and efficiency of three weed survey techniques. in Proceedings of the Third International conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. Pp. 453–463.Google Scholar
Colvin, T. S., Karlen, D. L., and Tischer, N. 1991. Yield variability within fields in central Iowa. in Automated Agriculture for the 21st Century. Proceeding of the 1991 Symposium. ASAE Publication No. 1191. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineering. Pp. 366–372.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2:13–20.Google Scholar
Daberkow, S. G. and McBride, W. D. 2000. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by U.S. farmers. in Proceedings of the Fifth International conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Gerhards, R., Wyse-Pester, D. Y., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, G. A. 1997. Characterizing spatial stability of weed populations using interpolated maps. Weed Sci. 45:108–119.Google Scholar
Goering, C. E. and Han, S. 1993. A field information system for soil specific crop management. 1993 International Off-Highway & Powerplant Congress & Exposition, Paper No. 932422. Warrendale, PA: The Engineering Society for Advancing Mobility by Land, Sea, Air, and Space.Google Scholar
Green, H. M., Vencill, W. K., Kvien, C. K., Boydell, B. C., and Pocknee, S. 1996. Site-specific weed management in the southern U.S. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 50:208.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. and Beck, J. L. 1998. Sensor-controlled hooded sprayer for row crops. Weed Technol. 12:308–314.Google Scholar
Heuvel, R. M. 1995. The promise of precision agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv 51/1:38–40.Google Scholar
Hofman, V., Franzen, D., and Hanson, J. 2000. Precision farming research in western North Dakota using variable fertilizer application and yield monitoring. in Proceedings of the Fifth International conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Gotway, C. A. 1996. Spatial and temporal analysis of weed seedling populations using geostatistics. Weed Sci. 44:704–710.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W. and Callihan, R. H. 1993. GPS and GIS for weed surveys and management. Weed Technol. 7:249–254.Google Scholar
Medlin, C. R. and Shaw, D. R. 2000. Economic comparison of broadcast and site-specific herbicide applications in nontransgenic and glyphosate-tolerant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:653–661.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Agricultural chemical usage 1997 field crops summary. Ag Ch 1(98). Washington, D.C.: USDA Economic Research Service. Pp. 1–71.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1996. Carbon and organic matter. in Sparks, D. L., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series 5. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Pp. 1001–1010.Google Scholar
Rosales-Robles, E., Chandler, J. M., Senseman, S. A., and Prostko, E. P. 1999. Integrated johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) management in field corn (Zea mays) with reduced rates of nicosulfuron and cultivation. Weed Technol. 13:367–373.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schueller, J. K. 1996. Impediments to spatially-variable field operations. Comput. Electron. Agric 14:249–253.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. A., Kranz, W. L., Blumenthal, J., Yonts, C. D., Benham, B. L., Ferguson, R. B., Hergert, G. W., Stevens, W. B., and Waltman, W. J. 2000. Site-specific nitrogen and irrigation management across Nebraska agro-ecological zones. in Proceedings of the Fifth International conference on Precision Agriculture. Abstract 82. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed-control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541–545.Google Scholar