Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans

1990 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 114-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Gunsolus
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Nonchemical Weed Control ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractMany farmers and consumers are reevaluating chemical weed control because of the environmental risks of herbicides and their influence on farm size and diversity. This paper reviews research of the last 35 years on mechanical and cultural weed control in corn(Zea maysL.)and soybeans(Glycine maxL.).Soybeans can better use the weed control advantages of late planting and narrow row spacing and are less affected by early stand losses from mechanical weed control. In Minnesota, delaying planting to early June allows early germinating weeds to be controlled by preplant tillage but reduces the maximum yield potential of corn by approximately 25 percent and soybeans by approximately 10 percent. Narrow rows allow the crop canopy to close earlier, preventing emerging weeds from developing. However, in a nonchemical weed control system, the row spacing should allow for inter-row cultivation to control weeds that emerge with the crop. Up to a 10 percent reduction in crop stand may be expected in fields that have been rotary hoed. In Minnesota, a 10 percent stand loss results in a 2 percent loss of corn yield potential and no loss of soybean yield potential. Successful mechanical weed control is directly related to the timeliness of the operation. Rotary hoeing is effective on weeds that have germinated but not yet emerged but not on weeds that germinate from deeper than 5 cm, on no-till fields, or on fields with more than 20 to 30 percent crop residue. Inter-row cultivation is most effective on weeds up to 10 to 15 cm tall. Successful nonchemical weed control requires highly refined management skills and is as much an art as a science.

Evaluation of Postemergence Weed Control Strategies in Herbicide-Resistant Isolines of Corn (Zea mays)

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Zuver ◽  
Mark L. Bernards ◽  
James J. Kells ◽  
Christy L. Sprague ◽  
Case R. Medlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Corn Hybrids ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Giant Ragweed ◽  
Pre Treatment

Herbicide-resistant corn hybrids offer additional options for POST weed control in corn, and growers may benefit from information on the consistency of these weed-control strategies. Studies were conducted in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, in 2000 and 2001, to evaluate weed control among herbicide strategies for imidazolinone-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, glyphosate-resistant, and conventional corn. Isogenic hybrids were utilized to minimize variation in growth and yield potential among hybrids. The glyphosate-resistant corn postemergence (glyphosate-POST) treatment provided more consistent control of giant foxtail than the PRE, conventional corn postemergence (conventional-POST), glufosinate-resistant corn postemergence (glufosinate-POST), and imidazolinone-resistant corn postemergence (imi-POST) treatments. All four POST treatments were more consistent and provided greater control than the PRE treatment of the large-seeded broadleaf weeds velvetleaf, giant ragweed, common cocklebur, and morningglory species. Conventional-POST and imi-POST were more consistent than glufosinate-POST and glyphosate-POST treatments in controlling giant ragweed. There were no statistical differences in the variability of PRE or POST treatments for control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and redroot pigweed. Corn yield varied among locations and years. The glyphosate-POST treatment did not reduce yield relative to the weed-free treatment, the imi-POST and glufosinate-POST treatments each reduced yield in one of eight locations, and the conventional-POST treatment reduced yield in three of eight locations.

Field Pea and Lentil Tolerance to Interrow Cultivation

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Stanley ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe ◽  
Dilshan Benaragama ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S. N. Duddu
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Row Crops ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractInterrow cultivation is a selective, in-crop mechanical weed control tool that has the potential to control weeds later in the growing season with less crop damage compared with other in-crop mechanical weed control tools. To our knowledge, no previous research has been conducted on the tolerance of narrow-row crops to interrow cultivation. The objective of this experiment was to determine the tolerance of field pea and lentil to interrow cultivation. Replicated field experiments were conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2014 and 2015. Weekly cultivation treatments began at the 4-node stage of each crop, continuing for 6 wk. Field pea and lentil yield linearly declined with later crop stages of cultivation. Cultivating multiple times throughout the growing season reduced yield by 15% to 30% in both crops. Minimal yield loss occurred when interrow cultivation was conducted once at early growth stages of field pea and lentil; however, yield loss increased with delayed and more frequent cultivation events.

scholarly journals A Low-cost Robot with Autonomous Recharge and Navigation for Weed Control in Fields with Narrow Row Spacing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yayun Du ◽  
Bhrugu Mallajosyula ◽  
Deming Sun ◽  
Jingyi Chen ◽  
Zihang Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Narrow Row

scholarly journals Three mechanical weed control techniques in spring cereals

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. LÖTJÖNEN ◽  
H. J. MIKKOLA
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Control Techniques ◽  
Mechanical Methods ◽  
Spring Cereals ◽  
Silty Clay Soil ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

An inter-row hoe suitable for cereals was developed for the study, and field experiments were conducted to compare inter-row hoeing with weed harrowing, rotary hoeing and chemical control. The treatments were performed once during the growing season. Inter-row hoeing was studied at row spacings of 180 mm and 250 mm. The weeding effect of the different methods was measured by weighing the weeds remaining just before harvesting. Inter-row hoeing was the most effective of the mechanical methods. Weed harrowing was as good as hoeing in silty clay soil but less effective in mull soil. Rotary hoeing was the least effective. Herbicide spraying was more effective than the mechanical methods in both soils. Increasing the spacing between rows from the standard 125 mm to 250 mm decreased the yield of barley by 12-13%. Inter-row hoeing affected the yield very slightly. The yield decreasing was lower at a row spacing of 180 mm than at 250 mm. Weed harrowing and rotary hoeing decreased the yield 5-10%. Although inter-row hoeing seems to be a fairly effective method for weed control, it may be difficult to compensate for the yield loss due to the increase in row spacing.;

scholarly journals Atrazine Reduces the Critical Period of Weed Interference on Narrow Row Corn

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. PADILHA ◽  
A.A.M. BARROSO ◽  
L.B. CARVALHO ◽  
F.R. COSTA ◽  
S. BIANCO
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Yield Components ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Conyza Bonariensis ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Sida Rhombifolia

ABSTRACT The objective was to determine whether a change occurs in the critical period of weed interference prevention in narrow row corn with the use of atrazine and whether there is influence of the herbicide on crop yield components. The treatments consisted of periods without or with an initial weed control (0, 21, 35, 49, 63, 77, and 91 days after emergence), with or without application of atrazine in spikely post-emergence. The experiment was carried out in a 2 x 7 randomized blocks design (with and without weed control and seven periods with three replications). The use or not of atrazine was arranged in a split plot design. The most important weed species were Senecio brasiliensis, Urochloa plantaginea, Conyza bonariensis, Sida rhombifolia, and Solanum spp. Corn yield reduced by 15% and 18% with and without application of atrazine, respectively. The number of grains per spike and corn yield were negatively influenced by coexistence with weeds, while the number of rows per spike, the diameter and length of spike were not affected. Corn yield components were not affected by the use of atrazine. The critical period of weed interference prevention was 35 days without atrazine and 23 days with application of atrazine. There is a reduction of the critical period of weed interference prevention on narrow row corn by using atrazine, with no influence of the herbicide on crop yield.

scholarly journals INTEGRAÇÃO DE PRÁTICAS PARA O MANEJO DE PLANTAS DANINHAS NA CULTURA DO MILHO

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvadi Antonio BALBINOT JUNIOR ◽  
Gilcimar Adriano VOGT ◽  
Michelangelo Muzell TREZZI
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Dry Mass ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Weed Infestation ◽  
Narrow Row

As práticas de manejo do solo e de culturas podem afetar diretamente a infestação de plantas daninhas na cultura do milho. O objetivo desse trabalho foi avaliar o efeito da integração de práticas culturais e químicas na infestação de plantas daninhas e na produtividade da cultura do milho. Foi conduzido um experimento em Papanduva, SC, em delineamento experimental de blocos ao acaso, com três repetições e parcelas subdivididas. Nas parcelas foram avaliados dois sistemas de manejo cultural de plantas daninhas: S1 (cultivo de consórcio de espécies para cobertura do solo no inverno, uso de sementes de milho com elevada massa e espaçamento entre fileiras de 0,45 m) e S2 (pousio no inverno, uso de sementes de milho com baixa massa e espaçamento entre fileiras de 0,90 m). Nas subparcelas foram avaliadas quatro estratégias de controle de plantas daninhas no milho (sem controle, atrazine, atrazine+mesotrione e capina). Avaliaram-se a quantidade de palha no momento da semeadura do milho, a velocidade de decomposição da palha, a densidade e a massa seca da parte aérea de plantas daninhas e o desempenho da cultura de milho. O uso de práticas culturais para o manejo de plantas daninhas promoveu redução da infestação dessas plantas na cultura de milho, além de aumentar a produtividade da cultura. A aplicação de atrazine + mesotrione proporcionou melhor controle de plantas daninhas e maior produtividade de grãos em relação à aplicação isolada de atrazine. ABSTRACT Soil and crop management can affect the weed population in corn. The experiment was carried out to evaluate the effect of cultural and chemical management practices on weed infestation and corn yield. The experiment was carried out in Papanduva, SC, Brazil. The experimental design was a randomized complete blocks with three replications in a split-plot arrangement. In plots were evaluated two cultural weed management systems: S1 (multicropping of winter cover crops, corn seeds with high weight and narrow row of 0.45 m) and S2 (winter fallow, corn seeds with low weight and narrow row of 0.90 m). In subplots were evaluated four weed control strategies (no-control, atrazine, atrazine + mesotrione and weeding). The parameters evaluated were the straw quantity, residue decomposition, weed plant density and shoot dry mass and corn performance. The use of cultural weed management practices reduced the weed infestation on corn and improved the crop yield. The association of atrazine + mesotrione herbicides showed more efficient weed control than atrazine.

Reduced herbicide rates provide acceptable weed control regardless of corn planting strategy in Ontario field corn

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter H Sikkema ◽  
Robert E Nurse ◽  
Tom Welacky ◽  
Allan S Hamill
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Field Corn ◽  
Crop Density ◽  
Full Rate ◽  
Untreated Check

A study was conducted at three locations in central-southwestern Ontario from 1996 to 1998 to determine if corn (Zea mays L.) productivity and weed control can be maintained when row spacing is narrowed, crop density is increased and herbicide rate is reduced. Post-emergence herbicides [(rimsulfuron + nicosulfuron) plus (dicamba + atrazine)] at four rates (full label rate (1×), 75% full rate (0.75×), 50% full rate (0.5×) and an untreated check) were tested at three corn row-spacings (38, 50, and 75 cm) and two plant densities (75 000 and 90 000 plants ha-1). Herbicide application at the 0.5× rate versus an untreated check still allowed for increased corn yield (8.3 vs. 4.9 t ha-1) and decreased weed dry weight (9.4 vs. 240.4 g m-2), weed plant density (11.0 vs. 52.6 plants m-2) and weed seed density (239 vs. 14 241 seeds m-2). Corn LAI was not affected by decreasing herbicide rate. In this study, increasing corn plant density and decreasing corn row spacing were not factors in reducing herbicide inputs in corn cropping systems in central-southwestern Ontario. Herbicide rate could be reduced by up to 50% while maintaining corn grain yield, weed density, weed dry weight, and the number of weed seeds entering into the soil seed bank. Implementation of these reduced rates will help to increase the economic and environmental sustainability of the Canadian field corn industry. Key words: Agricultural systems, crop yield, seeding rate, sustainability, weed biomass

scholarly journals Cultural Practices and Mechanical Weed Control for the Management of a Low-Diversity Weed Community in Spinach

Diversity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 616
Author(s):  
Ioannis Gazoulis ◽  
Panagiotis Kanatas ◽  
Nikolaos Antonopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Spinacia Oleracea ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Communities ◽  
Spinacia Oleracea L ◽  
Low Diversity ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

Low-diversity weed communities are dominated by few species that are highly competitive to crops. The management of such weed communities should rely upon sustainable cultural and non-chemical practices, especially in crops such as spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), where very few herbicides are available. A two-year field trial (2020 and 2021) was conducted to evaluate different fertilization practices (broadcast and banded), intra-row spacings (15 cm, 11 cm, 7 cm), and mechanical weed control treatments (untreated, one treatment, two treatments) for the management of a low-diversity weed community in spinach. Weed competition severely affected spinach commercial biomass (R2 = 0.845). Compared to broadcast fertilization, banded fertilization reduced weed biomass and improved spinach yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Narrow intra-row spacing (7-cm) reduced weed biomass by 28 and 45% compared to intra-row spacings of 11-cm and 15-cm, respectively. Two mechanical weed control treatments resulted in 49% lower weed biomass compared to a single treatment. Commercial biomass increased with decreasing intra-row spacing (R2 = 0.881) and increasing the number of mechanical treatments (R2 = 0.911). More cultural and non-chemical practices should be evaluated for weed management in spinach, especially at sites infested with low-diversity weed communities.

scholarly journals Mechanical weed control in organic winter wheat

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Euro Pannacci ◽  
Francesco Tei ◽  
Marcello Guiducci
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Ground Cover ◽  
Farming Systems ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

Three field experiments were carried out in organic winter wheat in three consecutive years (exp. 1, 2005-06; exp. 2, 2006-07; exp. 3, 2007-08) in central Italy (42°57' N - 12°22' E, 165 m a.s.l.) in order to evaluate the efficacy against weeds and the effects on winter wheat of two main mechanical weed control strategies: 1) spring tine harrowing used at three different application times (1 passage at T1; 2 passages at the time T1; 1 passage at T1 followed by 1 passage at T1 + 14 days) in the crop sowed at narrow (traditional) row spacing (0.15 m) and 2) split-hoeing and finger-weeder, alone and combined at T1, in the crop sowed at wider row spacing (0.30 m). At the time T1 winter wheat was at tillering and weeds were at the cotyledons-2 true leaves growth stage. The experimental design was a split-plot with four replicates. Six weeks after mechanical treatments, weed ground cover (%) was rated visually using the Braun–Blanquet cover-abundance scale; weeds on three squares (0.6 x 0.5 m each one) per plot were collected, counted, weighed, dried in oven at 105 °C to determine weed density and weed above-ground dry biomass. At harvest, wheat ears density, grain yield, weight of 1000 seeds and hectolitre weight were recorded. Total weed flora was quite different in the three experiments. The main weed species were: <em>Polygonum aviculare</em> L. (exp. 1 and 2), <em>Fallopia convolvulus</em> (L.) Á. Löve (exp. 1 and 3), <em>Stachys annua</em> (L.) L. (exp. 1), <em>Anagallis arvensis</em> L. (exp. 2), <em>Papaver rhoeas</em> L. (exp.3), <em>Veronica hederifolia</em> L. (exp. 3). In the winter wheat sowed at narrow rows, 2 passages with spring-tine harrowing at the same time seems to be the best option in order to reconcile a good efficacy with the feasibility of treatment. In wider rows spacing the best weed control was obtained by splithoeing alone or combined with finger-weeder. The grain yield, on average 10% higher in narrow rows, the lower costs and the good selectivity of spring-tine harrowing treatments seems to suggest the adoption of narrow rows spacing in wheat in organic and low-input farming systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document