Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:00:55.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. Stanley Culpepper  and
Alan C. York
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: alan_york@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was conducted at five locations in North Carolina to compare management systems utilizing glufosinate applied postemergence (POST) in glufosinate-resistant corn with standard systems of metolachlor plus atrazine preemergence (PRE) or nicosulfuron plus atrazine POST Glufosinate alone and both standard systems controlled common ragweed and prickly sida at least 98%, whereas sicklepod control was < 20% late in the season. Late-season control of common lambsquarters, smooth pigweed, pitted morningglory, and tall morningglory was generally less with glufosinate alone than with the standard systems. However, late-season control of common lambsquarters, smooth pigweed, pitted morningglory, tall morningglory, and sicklepod by mixtures of glufosinate plus atrazine was at least 99, 100, 89, 93, and 81%, respectively, and was equal to or greater than control by either standard. Broadleaf signalgrass, large crabgrass, and fall panicum were controlled similarly by glufosinate and the standards. Goosegrass control by glufosinate was similar to control by nicosulfuron plus atrazine, but it was less than control by metolachlor plus atrazine. Metolachlor applied PRE or atrazine mixed with glufosinate increased goosegrass control to that achieved with metolachlor plus atrazine. Mixing atrazine with glufosinate did not affect fall panicum control, but metolachlor PRE followed by glufosinate controlled fall panicum as well as the standards. Cultivation or ametryn applied at layby increased control when PRE or POST herbicides alone controlled weeds less than about 90%. Ametryn was generally more effective than cultivation. Glufosinate POST followed by ametryn at layby controlled sicklepod > 90% and other species > 95% late in the season. Corn yield and net returns were similar in the glufosinate and standard systems.

Keywords

glufosinate, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acidcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUcorn, Zea mays L. ‘NK 7639 BT.’Corn yieldcultivationherbicide-resistant cropsLiberty Link cornnet returnsAMACHAMBELBRAPPCASOBCHEALDIGSAELEINIPOLAPANDIPHBPUSIDSPPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceTHRC, transgenic, herbicide-resistant cropsWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 324 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

Anderson, J. R. Jr., and Sampson, H. A. 1997. North Carolina Farm Enterprise Budget Guidelines. Miscellaneous Publication. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 70 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. Agricultural Chemical Usage—1996 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 70 p.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Shaw, D. R., and Arnold, J. C. 1997. Weed control in Liberty Link(™) soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:59.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1994. Soil insecticide and placement influence corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 8:598–606.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–647.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 6:621–625.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. Z., Eiden, C., and Lorber, M. N. 1986. Monitoring ground water for pesticides. In Garner, R. C., Honeycutt, R. C., and Higg, H. N., eds. Evaluation of Pesticides in Ground Water. Symposium Ser. 315. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 170–197.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. In Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 251–291.Google Scholar
Goldburg, R., Rissler, J., Shand, H., and Hasselbrook, C. 1990. Biotechnology's Bitter Harvest: Herbicide-Tolerant Crops and the Threat to Sustainable Agriculture. Washington, DC: Biotechnology Working Group. 73 p.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Hessler, M. D., Chandler, J. M., McCauley, G. N., and Schwarzlose, G. L. 1997. Weed management systems in transgenic rice with glufosinate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:14.Google Scholar
Hinchee, M.A.W., Padgette, S. R., Kishore, G. M., Delannay, X., and Fraley, R. T. 1993. Herbicide-tolerant crops. In Kung, S. and Wu, R., eds. Transgenic Plants. Volume 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
Holden, L. R., Graham, J. A., Whitmore, R. W., Alexander, W. J., Pratt, R. W., Liddle, S. K., and Piper, L. L. 1992. Results of the national alachlor well water survey. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:935–943.Google Scholar
Jayachandran, K., Steinheimer, T. R., Somasundaram, L., Moorman, T. B., Kanwar, R. S., and Coats, J. R. 1994. Occurrence of atrazine and degradates as contaminants of subsurface drainage and shallow groundwater. J. Environ. Qual. 23:311–319.Google Scholar
Kishore, G. M., Padgette, S. R., and Fraley, R. T. 1992. History of herbicide-tolerant crops, methods of development and current state of the art—emphasis on glyphosate tolerance. Weed Technol. 6:626–634.Google Scholar
Lyon, B. R. 1991. Engineering microbial herbicide detoxification genes in higher plants. In Dennis, E. S. and Llewellyn, D. J., eds. Molecular Approaches to Crop Improvement. Wien, Germany: Springer-Verlag. pp. 79–108.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.), wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.), and woolly cupgrass [Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth.] in glufosinate resistant field corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:87.Google Scholar
Obermeier, M. R. and Kapusta, G. 1996. Postemergence broadleaf weed control in corn (Zea mays) with CGA-152005. Weed Technol. 10:689–698.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J. V. 1974. Yellow nutsedge, giant green foxtail, and fall panicum control in corn. Weed Sci. 22:80–82.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Ghersa, C. M., and Comstock, G. 1992. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops. Weed Technol. 6:635–639.Google Scholar
Richards, P. R., Baker, D. B., Creamer, N. L., Kramer, J. W., Ewing, D. E., Merryfield, B. J., and Wallabenstein, L. K. 1996. Well water quality, well vulnerability, and agricultural contamination in the midwestern United States. J. Environ. Qual. 25:389–402.Google Scholar
Singh, M. and Tucker, D.P.H. 1987. Glufosinate (Ignite): a new promising postemergence herbicide for citrus. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 100:58–61.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. K., Schwarzlose, G. L., Crossland, T., Sanderson, J. W., Odom, P. N., and Strachan, W. F. 1997. Liberty Link weed control systems for southern corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:61.Google Scholar
Tingle, C. H., Shaw, D. R., and Ellis, J. M. 1996. Weed control programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:191.Google Scholar
Wade, H. F., York, A. C., Morey, A. E., Padmore, J. M., and Rudo, K. M. 1998. The impact of pesticide use on groundwater in North Carolina. J. Environ. Qual. 27:1018–1026.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 7:459–472.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wild, A. and Manderscheid, R. 1984. The effect of phosphinothricin on the assimilation of ammonia in plants. Z. Naturforsch. 39:500–504.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. A., Coble, H. D., and Modena, S. A. 1995. HERB: Postemergence Weed Control. Version 5.02. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0024, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531–536.Google Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future impact of crops with modified herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 6:665–668.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Weed management in Liberty Link corn and soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:2.Google Scholar