Translator Disclaimer
1 January 2007 Economic Assessment of Weed Management Systems in Glufosinate-resistant, Glyphosate-Resistant, Imidazolinone-tolerant, and Nontransgenic Corn
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Four field studies were conducted in 2004 to evaluate corn tolerance, weed control, grain yield, and net returns in glufosinate-resistant (GUR), glyphosate-resistant (GYR), imidazolinone-tolerant (IT), and nontransgenic (NT) corn with various herbicide systems. No significant differences between hybrid systems were observed for weed control. Limited corn injury (< 5%) was observed for all herbicide treatments. A single early POST (EPOST) system without S-metolachlor and sequential POST over the top (POT) herbicide systems, averaged over corn hybrids and PRE and late POST-directed (LAYBY) herbicide options, provide 93 and 99% control of goosegrass, respectively, and at least 83 and 97% control of Texas panicum, respectively. A single EPOST system without S-metolachlor, averaged over corn hybrids and LAYBY treatment options, provided at least 88% control of large crabgrass. When averaged over corn hybrid and PRE herbicide options, a sequential POT herbicide system alone provided at least 98, 99, 98, and 100 control of large crabgrass, morningglory species, Palmer amaranth, and common lambsquarters, respectively. The addition of ametryn at LAYBY to a single EPOST system without S-metolachlor was beneficial for improving control of morningglory species, common lambsquarters, and Palmer amaranth, depending on location. However, the observed increases (7 percentage points or less) are likely of limited biological significance. Grain yield was variable between hybrids and locations because of environmental differences. Consequently, net returns for each hybrid system within a location were also variable. Any POT system with or without ametryn at LAYBY, averaged over corn hybrid and PRE herbicide options, provided at least 101, 97, 92, and 92% yield protection at Clayton, Kinston, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC, respectively. Net returns were maximized with treatments that provided excellent weed control with minimal inputs.

Nomenclature: Glufosinate, glyphosate, common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEAL, goosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEIN, large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSA, Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats. AMAPA, Texas panicum Buckl. PANTE, corn, Zea mays L

Walter E. Thomas, Wesley J. Everman, Jayla Allen, Jim Collins, and John W. Wilcut "Economic Assessment of Weed Management Systems in Glufosinate-resistant, Glyphosate-Resistant, Imidazolinone-tolerant, and Nontransgenic Corn," Weed Technology 21(1), 191-198, (1 January 2007). https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-06-054.1
Received: 6 March 2006; Accepted: 1 July 2006; Published: 1 January 2007
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top