Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:24:40.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wild-Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Control in Central Great Plains Irrigated Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. Weed Sci., Colo. State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebr., Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. Weed Sci., Colo. State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523

Abstract

Wild-proso millet control in furrow-irrigated corn was evaluated in Colorado and Nebraska in 1986 and 1987. No single herbicide alone controlled wild-proso millet all season. In Colorado, EPTC applied preplant incorporated followed by cyanazine plus pendimethalin applied early postemergence controlled 94% of wild-proso millet. Acetochlor applied preemergence followed by cyanazine plus pendimethalin applied early postemergence controlled wild-proso millet better all season (93%) than alachlor (81%) or metolachlor (71%) followed by the same early postemergence strategy. Successful Colorado wild-proso millet management treatments (>85% season-long control) increased corn yields an average of 3260 kg ha-1 compared to the untreated control. To obtain wild-proso millet control of 90% or more in Nebraska in 1986, alachlor, cycloate, EPTC, and metolachlor applied had to be combined with cyanazine plus pendimethalin applied early postemergence. Average corn yields in herbicide-treated areas in Nebraska were 2980 kg ha-1 higher than those recorded in the untreated control.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

1. Bough, M. J., Colosi, C., and Cavers, P. B. 1986. The major weedy biotypes of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Canada. Can. J. Bot. 64:11881198.Google Scholar
2. Curtis, D., Braunworth, W. S. Jr., McGrath, D., and Crabtree, G. 1988. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) control in sweet corn in the Willamette Valley, 1988. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 41:250252.Google Scholar
3. Fawcett, J. A., and Harvey, R. G. 1988. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence-directed herbicides. Weed Sci. 36:215220.Google Scholar
4. Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: wild-proso millet. Crops Soils Mag. 31(7):1013.Google Scholar
5. Harvey, R. G., McNevin, G. R., Albright, J. W., and Kozak, M. E. 1986. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control with thiocarbamate herbicides on previously treated soils. Weed Sci. 34:773780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Harvey, R. G., Dekker, J. H., Fawcett, R. S., Roeth, F. W., and Wilson, R. G. 1987. Enhanced biodegradation of herbicides in soil and effects on weed control. Weed Technol. 1:341349.Google Scholar
7. Miller, S. D. 1987. Wild-proso millet control in corn. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 40:140.Google Scholar
8. Westra, P., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. Control of wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) and Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) in corn (Zea mays). Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 41:148.Google Scholar
9. Wilson, R. G. 1984. Accelerated degradation of thiocarbamate herbicides in soil with prior thiocarbamate herbicide exposure. Weed Sci. 32:264268.Google Scholar