Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-tldsr Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-04T02:51:26.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Nicosulfuron Timing on Wild-Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Control in Sweet Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bill J. Williams  and
R. Gordon Harvey
Bill J. Williams*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
R. Gordon Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bwilliams@agctr.lsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of nicosulfuron application timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control and sweet corn (Zea mays) yield was evaluated in the field during 1991, 1992, and 1993. Sweet corn yields were equal to hand weeded controls when nicosulfuron was applied to wild-proso millet shorter than 9 cm, but the best (> 95%) wild-proso millet control occurred when nicosulfuron was applied to wild-proso millet plants between 11 and 19 cm tall. However, nicosulfuron controlled wild-proso millet 90 to 95%, 13 wk after planting, when nicosulfuron was applied to plants 8 to 10 cm tall. Nicosulfuron applications made to wild-proso millet plants less than 8 cm were made early in the season and failed to control subsequent wild-proso millet flushes. Additionally, nicosulfuron failed to control completely wild-proso millet plants larger than 20 cm. Consequently, nicosulfuron applied to wild-proso millet plants shorter than 8 cm or taller than 20 cm resulted in a rapid decline in wild-proso millet control 13 wk after planting. Nicosulfuron applied following 6.7 kg ai/ha EPTC plus 2.2 kg ai/ha cyanazine PPI in 1991, could be applied to wild-proso millet 25 cm tall without subsequent losses in wild-proso millet control or sweet corn yield. Wild-proso millet control was 93% and sweet corn yields were equal to hand-weeded controls when nicosulfuron was applied to wild-proso millet 4 cm tall and followed by one cultivation 14 d after application.

Keywords

Cyanazine, 2-[[4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2-methylpropanenitrileEPTC, S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioatenicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamidewild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. # PANMIsweet corn, Zea mays L.CultivationPANMIyield loss.DAA, days after applicationOEM, oil emulsifier concentratePDIR, directed postemergencePOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrateWAP, weeks after planting

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 377 - 382
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1996. Accent SP herbicide, supplemental label. EPA Reg. No. 352-560. Wilmington, DE: DuPont Agricultural Products, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 85–100.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1988. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence-directed herbicides. Weed Sci. 36: 215–220.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
Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: wild-proso millet. Crop and Soils Mag. 27: 10–13.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and McNevin, G. R. 1990. Combining cultural practices and herbicides to control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Technol. 4: 443–439.Google Scholar
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: 773–780.Google Scholar
Kleppe, C. D. and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence-directed herbicides control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in sweet corn. Weed Technol. 5: 746–752.Google Scholar
Luellen, W. R. 1982. Wild-proso millet: will you recognize it before it is too late? Crops and Soils Mag. 30: 365–368.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A. 1993. Selectivity and Efficacy of Sulfonylurea Herbicides and Wild-Proso Millet Competition in Field and Sweet Corn. . University of Wisconsin-Madison. pp. 48–59.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Sequential applications control woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) and wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 537–542.Google Scholar
Shenk, M. D., Braunworth, W. S. Jr., Fernandez, R. J., Curtis, D. W., McGrath, D., and William, R. D. 1990. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4: 440–445.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980a. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill. 176 p.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980b. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill. pp. 471–472.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Wilson, R. G., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1990. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in central great plains irrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4: 409–414.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39: 217–220.Google Scholar