Abstract
Texas panicum is considered to be the most troublesome weed of field corn in the Southeast. Field trials were conducted in Georgia in 2003 and 2004 to compare pendimethalin, nicosulfuron, foramsulfuron, and glyphosate for Texas panicum control in irrigated field corn and to determine which herbicide provided the greatest economic returns. Pendimethalin applied early POST (EPOST), 10 to 12 d after planting (DAP), controlled Texas panicum less than 35% late in the season and resulted in reduced corn yield and net returns in 2004. Glyphosate applied sequentially POST at 21 to 24 DAP and again late POST (LPOST) at 35 to 38 DAP controlled Texas panicum 82 to 94% late in the season compared with 43 to 80% control by nicosulfuron and foramsulfuron applied POST. Texas panicum control, corn yield, and net returns were similar with glyphosate applied POST and LPOST at 0.53 or 1.1 kg ai/ha. Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST was more effective than glyphosate POST, but net returns were greater only in 2004.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Pendimethalin applied EPOST controlled Texas panicum to less than 35% late in the season.
- Treatment
- Pendimethalin applied early POST (EPOST), 10 to 12 d after planting (DAP)e0
- Interactor
- Texas panicume0weed
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- less thane0
- Value
- 35%e0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Pendimethalin applied early POST (EPOST), 10 to 12 d after planting (DAP), controlled Texas panicum less than 35% late in the season”
Claim · model-written summary
Pendimethalin applied EPOST resulted in reduced corn yield and net returns in 2004.
- Treatment
- Pendimethalin applied early POST (EPOST), 10 to 12 d after planting (DAP)e0
- Outcome
- corn yield and net returnse1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Qualifier
- in 2004e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Pendimethalin applied early POST (EPOST), 10 to 12 d after planting (DAP), controlled Texas panicum less than 35% late in the season”
e1“resulted in reduced corn yield and net returns in 2004”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST controlled Texas panicum to 82 to 94%, higher than nicosulfuron and foramsulfuron applied POST (43 to 80%).
- Treatment
- Glyphosate applied sequentially POST at 21 to 24 DAP and again late POST (LPOST) at 35 to 38 DAPe2
- Interactor
- Texas panicume2weed
- Outcome
- controle2
- Direction
- higherinferrede2
- Value
- 82 to 94%e2
- Qualifier
- 43 to 80% controle2
- Comparator
- nicosulfuron and foramsulfuron applied POSTe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays)”
e2“Glyphosate applied sequentially POST at 21 to 24 DAP and again late POST (LPOST) at 35 to 38 DAP controlled Texas panicum 82 to 94% late in the season compared with 43 to 80% control by nicosulfuron and foramsulfuron applied POST”
Claim · model-written summary
Texas panicum control, corn yield and net returns were similar with glyphosate applied POST and LPOST at 0.53 or 1.1 kg ai/ha.
- Treatment
- glyphosate applied POST and LPOST at 0.53 or 1.1 kg ai/hae3
- Interactor
- Texas panicume3weed
- Outcome
- Texas panicum control, corn yield, and net returnse3
- Direction
- similare3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays)”
e3“Texas panicum control, corn yield, and net returns were similar with glyphosate applied POST and LPOST at 0.53 or 1.1 kg ai/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST was more effective than glyphosate POST alone.
- Treatment
- Glyphosate applied POST and LPOSTe4
- Outcome
- effectivee4
- Direction
- moree4
- Comparator
- glyphosate POSTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays)”
e4“Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST was more effective than glyphosate POST”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST gave greater net returns than glyphosate POST, but only in 2004.
- Treatment
- Glyphosate applied POST and LPOSTe4
- Outcome
- net returnse5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Qualifier
- only in 2004e5
- Comparator
- glyphosate POSTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigated Field Corn (Zea mays)”
e4“Glyphosate applied POST and LPOST was more effective than glyphosate POST”
e5“net returns were greater only in 2004”
The same questions in other papers
pendimethalin · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →glyphosate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
73 papers more in this group
See all 77 papers →pendimethalin · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →glyphosate · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.