Paper · 2012 · Agronomy Journal

Integrating Mechanical and Reduced Chemical Weed Control in Conservation Tillage Corn

Ryan T. Bates; Robert S. Gallagher; William S. Curran; et al.

9
claims
20
verbatim quotes
21
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production has greatly reduced the soil erosion potential in these systems, but relies heavily on herbicides to manage weeds. Overreliance on herbicides can lead to the development of herbicide‐resistant weed communities and increase the risk of ground and surface water contamination by residual herbicides. This study evaluates the integration of various mechanical soil/weed management implements and herbicide programs for surface residue cover, weed control, corn productivity, and economic net returns. A pre‐plant vertical coulter/rotary harrow tended to control small annual weeds as well as a standard burn down herbicide program, but reduced surface residue cover by 15% compared to the no‐till check treatments. The high residue rotary hoe had little effect on surface residue cover, but provided inconsistent early‐season weed control. The high residue inter‐row cultivator resulted in 23% residue cover compared to 50% in the no‐till treatments, but reduced weed biomass by 53% without any supplemental residual herbicides and 88% with a banded residual herbicide compared to the weedy check treatment. Crop productivity and net return data suggest that integrating the vertical coulter/rotary harrow, high residue cultivator, and banded residual herbicide program could reduce herbicide ai rates by 70% and still achieve similar corn yields and economic returns as the herbicide intensive systems. Such integrated mechanical‐chemical systems will increase the crop management complexity for farmers, which may hinder adoption. Soil erosion potential of the integrated systems requires further in‐depth evaluation.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The pre-plant vertical coulter/rotary harrow reduced surface residue cover by 15% compared with the no-till check treatments.

Treatment
pre‐plant vertical coulter/rotary harrowe1
Outcome
surface residue covere2
Direction
reducede2
Value
15%e2
Comparator
no‐till check treatmentse2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e1

“A pre‐plant vertical coulter/rotary harrow tended to control small annual weeds as well as a standard burn down herbicide program”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 554–683 · show in text ↑
e2

“but reduced surface residue cover by 15% compared to the no‐till check treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 685–766 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The pre-plant vertical coulter/rotary harrow tended to control small annual weeds as well as a standard burn-down herbicide program.

Treatment
pre‐plant vertical coulter/rotary harrowe1
Outcome
control small annual weedse1
Direction
tended to controle1
Comparator
standard burn down herbicide programe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e1

“A pre‐plant vertical coulter/rotary harrow tended to control small annual weeds as well as a standard burn down herbicide program”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 554–683 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high residue rotary hoe had little effect on surface residue cover.

Treatment
high residue rotary hoee3
Outcome
surface residue covere3
Direction
had little effecte3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e3

“The high residue rotary hoe had little effect on surface residue cover, but provided inconsistent early‐season weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 768–891 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high residue rotary hoe gave inconsistent early-season weed control.

Treatment
high residue rotary hoee3
Outcome
early‐season weed controle3
Direction
inconsistente3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e3

“The high residue rotary hoe had little effect on surface residue cover, but provided inconsistent early‐season weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 768–891 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high residue inter-row cultivator left 23% residue cover, versus 50% in the no-till treatments.

Treatment
high residue inter‐row cultivatore4
Outcome
residue covere4
Direction
decreaseinferrede4
Value
23%e4
Comparator
no‐till treatmentse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e4

“The high residue inter‐row cultivator resulted in 23% residue cover compared to 50% in the no‐till treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 893–1002 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high residue inter-row cultivator reduced weed biomass by 53% without supplemental residual herbicides, compared with the weedy check.

Treatment
high residue inter‐row cultivatore4
Outcome
weed biomasse5
Direction
reducede5
Value
53%e5
Qualifier
without any supplemental residual herbicidese5
Comparator
weedy check treatmente5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e4

“The high residue inter‐row cultivator resulted in 23% residue cover compared to 50% in the no‐till treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 893–1002 · show in text ↑
e5

“reduced weed biomass by 53% without any supplemental residual herbicides and 88% with a banded residual herbicide compared to the weedy check treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1159 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A banded residual herbicide reduced weed biomass by 88% compared with the weedy check.

Treatment
banded residual herbicidee5
Outcome
weed biomasse5
Direction
reducede5
Value
88%e5
Comparator
weedy check treatmente5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e5

“reduced weed biomass by 53% without any supplemental residual herbicides and 88% with a banded residual herbicide compared to the weedy check treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1159 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The integrated mechanical-chemical program could reduce herbicide active ingredient rates by 70%.

Treatment
integrating the vertical coulter/rotary harrow, high residue cultivator, and banded residual herbicide programe6
Outcome
herbicide ai ratese6
Direction
reducee6
Value
70%e6
Comparator
herbicide intensive systemse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e6

“integrating the vertical coulter/rotary harrow, high residue cultivator, and banded residual herbicide program could reduce herbicide ai rates by 70% and still achieve similar corn yields and economic returns as the herbicide intensive systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1212–1455 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The integrated mechanical-chemical program gave corn yields and economic returns similar to the herbicide-intensive systems.

Treatment
integrating the vertical coulter/rotary harrow, high residue cultivator, and banded residual herbicide programe6
Outcome
corn yields and economic returnse6
Direction
similare6
Comparator
herbicide intensive systemse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation tillage for corn ( Zea mays L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–55 · show in text ↑
e6

“integrating the vertical coulter/rotary harrow, high residue cultivator, and banded residual herbicide program could reduce herbicide ai rates by 70% and still achieve similar corn yields and economic returns as the herbicide intensive systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1212–1455 · show in text ↑

herbicide · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 18 positive, 13 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

herbicide · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

406 papers: 360 positive, 46 negative or no effect

359 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

402 papers more in this group

See all 406 papers →

herbicide · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

651 papers: 500 positive, 151 negative or no effect

150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 500 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
    Mean net return was moderately higher for herbicides.

    Evaluation of Mechanical Weed Management Programs for Corn (Zea mays) · 1997 · compared with best mechanical treatment

    No difference from an alternativeCited by this paper

  3. positive

647 papers more in this group

See all 651 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.