Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:06:24.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Narrow Row/High Population Corn (Zea mays) on Weed Control and Light Transmittance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John R. Teasdale
John R. Teasdale*
Affiliation:
Weed Sci. Lab., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1989 to 1992 to determine whether no-tillage corn grown in 38-cm rows and a 2× population could improve weed control relative to 76-cm rows and 1× population under reduced-herbicide options. A standard treatment including 1.12 kg ai/ha of atrazine plus 2.24 kg ai/ha of metolachlor was compared with a treatment including the same herbicides applied at 25% of the standard rates. Both treatments included 0.56 kg ai/ha of paraquat which controlled annual weeds established at the time of application. Weed control was less in the 25%-herbicide treatment than in the standard treatment in two of four years when corn was grown in 76-cm rows with a l× population. The 25%-herbicide treatment provided weed control and grain yields similar to the standard treatment in each year when corn was grown in 38-cm rows with a 2× population. Weed control was poor and yield was reduced when no herbicides were applied regardless of row spacing or population. The leaf canopy of corn in the 38-cm row/2×-population treatment reduced light transmittance 1 wk earlier than corn in the 76-cm row/1×-population treatment.

Keywords

Atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N′-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diaminemetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamideparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ioncorn (Zea mays L.)Herbicidereduced-inputatrazinemetolachlor
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 113 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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

1. Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 7:161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Gallo, K. P. and Daughtry, C.S.T. 1986. Techniques for measuring intercepted and absorbed photosynthetically active radiation in corn canopies. Agron. J. 78:752–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ghafar, Z. and Watson, A. K. 1983. Effect of corn population on the growth of yellow nutsedge. Weed Sci. 31:588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain com. Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hashemi-Dezfouli, A. and Herbert, S. J. 1992. Intensifying plant density response of corn with artificial shade. Agron. J. 84:547–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hauser, E. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Production of peanuts as affected by weed competition and row spacing. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 538. 35 p.Google Scholar
7. National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. p. 98–108.Google Scholar
8. Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans. Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
9. Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed competition with snap beans. Weed Sci. 31:81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Responses of maize to plant population density. I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron. J. 80:930–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Responses of maize to plant population density. II. Reproductive development, yield, and yield adjustments. Agron. J. 80:935–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar