Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T07:20:06.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Yield Response to Foramsulfuron in Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Nurse ,
Allan S. Hamill ,
Clarence J. Swanton ,
François J. Tardif  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Robert E. Nurse*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2585 County Rd. 20 R.R. #2 Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2585 County Rd. 20 R.R. #2 Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
François J. Tardif
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nurser@agr.gc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Foramsulfuron has recently been registered for weed control in corn in Ontario, but there is very little information on the rate of foramsulfuron required to obtain at least 90% weed control. Our objective was to determine the foramsulfuron rates giving at least 90% weed control while maintaining crop yield loss due to weed interference and injury at less than 5%. Ten field trials were conducted at five Ontario locations (Exeter, Harrow, Ridgetown, Woodslee, and Woodstock) in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate the effectiveness of foramsulfuron at rates ranging from 8.75 to 140 g ai/ha. To obtain a reduction in biomass of 90% (I 90) at 78 d after treatment (DAT), foramsulfuron must be applied to common lambsquarters at 68 g/ha and to common ragweed at 86 g/ha, respectively. For green foxtail a foramsulfuron rate of 25 g/ha was required to achieve 90% control. The application of foramsulfuron caused injury to corn at 7 DAT at Ridgetown and Woodstock only, but did not exceed a rating of 10%; by 14 and 28 DAT no corn injury was recorded at any location. Corn yield of at least 95% of a weed-free check was obtained at Woodstock when foramsulfuron was applied at 70 g/ha. At Exeter and Woodslee yield was 90% of the weed-free check at a foramsulfuron rate of 35 g/ha. Finally, at Harrow and Ridgetown, corn yield was lowered at all foramsulfuron rates because of broadleaved weed interference. Tank-mixing foramsulfuron with dicamba plus prosulfuron improved common lambsquarters and common ragweed control and final corn yield was improved by more than 20% when compared with an application of foramsulfuron alone. Thus, these results show that weed control with foramsulfuron is species specific and that tank mixtures with a broadleaf herbicide may be required for broad-spectrum weed control and to protect the full yield potential of corn.

Keywords

Foramsulfuroncommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIcorn, Zea mays L.Integrated weed managementdicambanicosulfuronprosulfuronrimsulfuron

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 453 - 458
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, , 2003. Option herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience. 1–10.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. N., Smeal, D., and O'Neill, M. K. 2005. Broadleaf weed control in field corn with postemergence herbicides. Online. Crop Manage. DOI:10.1094/CM-2005-0224-01-RS.Google Scholar
Bunting, J. A., Sprague, C. L., and Riechers, D. E. 2004a. Absorption and activity of foramsulfuron in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) with various adjuvants. Weed Sci. 52:513–517.Google Scholar
Bunting, J. A., Sprague, C. L., and Riechers, D. E. 2004b. Corn tolerance as affected by the timing of foramsulfuron applications. Weed Technol. 18:757–762.Google Scholar
Bunting, J. A., Sprague, C. L., and Riechers, D. E. 2005. Incorporating foramsulfuron into annual weed control systems for corn. Weed Technol. 19:160–167.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci. 105:513–521.Google Scholar
Cox, W. J., Hahn, R. R., Stachowski, P. J., and Cherney, J. H. 2005. Weed interference and glyphosate timing affect corn forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 97:847–853.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F., Hamill, A. S., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of RPA 201772 for reemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:670–676.Google Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food [OMAF] 2004. Guide to weed control, Publication 75. Toronto, ON. 109–147.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red-far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci. 52:774–778.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O., Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999. Statistical tests for hormesis and effective dosages in herbicide dose response. Agron. J. 91:713–721.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Knezevic, S. Z., Hamill, A. S., Tardif, F. J., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of SAN 1269H (BAS 662H) for weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:283–289.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Deen, B., Bowley, S., and Sikkema, P. H. 2005. Effects of preemergence applications of flufenacet plus metribuzin on weeds and soybean (Glycine max). Crop Prot. 24:507–511.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P. 1993. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press. 270.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shreshta, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop Prod. 2:9–29.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar