Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:04:15.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Integrated Weed Management Strategy for Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anil Shrestha ,
Irena Rajcan ,
Kevin Chandler  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Irena Rajcan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Kevin Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rcswanton@uoguelph.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early canopy closure and manipulation of crop row spacing or density can reduce the amount and frequency of herbicide use in corn. Field studies were conducted at Woodstock, ON from 1996 to 1999 to evaluate the effect of corn row spacing, plant density, and frequency of glufosinate application on weed biomass and corn yield in glufosinate-resistant corn. Treatments included row width, corn density, and herbicide. The effect of row width and corn density on weed biomass was variable among years. In a wet year (1996), narrow (38 cm) rows provided greater weed suppression than wide (76 cm) rows regardless of crop density. In a dry year (1998), narrow-row high-density (100,000 plants/ha) corn had the lowest weed biomass. In other years, either narrow row or high density was equally successful in suppressing weeds. Effectiveness of herbicides in reducing weed biomass was not influenced by row width or corn density. Corn yield was influenced by row width or corn density. Although weed biomass was lowered by two applications of glufosinate in comparison with a single application, corn grain yields were similar between the two treatments. Planting corn at higher densities may help in reducing early-season weed competition, whereas narrow rows may help in controlling later-emerging species.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosatemetolachlordicambacorn, Zea mays L. Pride X2650LLCorn row spacingcorn densityEPOST, early postemergenceIWM, integrated weed managementLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 517 - 522
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

Alessi, J. and Power, J. F. 1974. Effect of plant population, row spacing, and relative maturity in dryland corn in the Northern Plains. I. Corn forage and grain yield. Agron. J. 66: 316–319.Google Scholar
Ballare, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Sanchez, R. A., and Radosevich, S. R. 1992. Photomorphogenic processes in the agricultural environment. Photochem. Photobiol. 56: 777–788.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. Hoe 39866 use in chemical fallow systems. Weed Technol. 3: 420–428.Google Scholar
Bullock, D. G., Nielsen, R. L., and Nyquist, W. E. 1988. A growth analysis comparison of Corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacing. Crop Sci. 28: 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant Corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 324–333.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 7: 161–167.Google Scholar
Fulton, J. M. 1970. Relationships among soil moisture stress, plant populations, row spacing and yield of corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50: 31–38.Google Scholar
Ghafar, Z. and Watson, A. K. 1983. Effect of Corn (Zea mays L.) seeding rate on growth on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 31: 572–575.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 5: 114–119.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Knezevic, S. Z., Chandler, K., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F. J., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Weed control in glufosinate tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 14: 578–585.Google Scholar
Hashemi-Dezfouli, A. and Herbert, S. J. 1992. Intensifying plant density response of Corn with artificial shade. Agron. J. 84: 547–551.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Hovestad, T. R., and Greenwald, R. E. 1998. Integrated weed management using narrow Corn row spacing, herbicides, and cultivation. Agron. J. 90: 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37: 84–92.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, B. E. 1998. Mechanisms of Corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J. 90: 787–792.Google Scholar
Macdonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., and Shilling, D. G. 1992. Factors affecting germination of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and yankeeweed (Eupatorium compositifolium). Weed Sci. 40: 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between Corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.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
Olson, R. A. and Sander, D. H. 1988. Corn production. In Sprague, G. F. and Dudley, J. W., eds. Corn and Corn Improvement. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. pp. 639–686.Google Scholar
Polito, T. A. and Voss, R. D. 1991. Corn yield response to varied producer controlled factors and weather in high yield environments. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 51–57.Google Scholar
Porter, P. M., Hicks, D. R., Lueschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Warnes, D. D., and Hoverstad, T. R. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern Corn belt. Agron. J. 10: 293–300.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, R. G. 1998. Weed control systems utilizing glufosinate and glufosinate-resistant crops. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:5.Google Scholar
SAS. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. 4th ed. Statistical Analysis Systems, Box 8000, Cary, NC 27511-8000. p. 1290.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: The rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.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
Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988a. Responses of maize to plant population density. I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron. J. 80: 930–935.Google Scholar
Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988b. Responses of maize to plant population density. II. Reproductive development, yield, and yield adjustments. Agron. J. 80: 935–940.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and Corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13: 807–813.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86: 591–595.Google Scholar
Westgate, M. E., Forcella, F., Reicosky, D. C., and Somsen, J. 1997. Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern US corn belt: radiation use efficiency and grain yield. Field Crops Res. 49: 249–258.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. and Heath, S. B. 1969. The equitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron. 21: 281–321.Google Scholar