Abstract
Field experiments were conducted in 1997 and 1998 near Columbia and Novelty, MO, and at Urbana, IL, to evaluate corn injury, weed control, corn yield, and estimated economic returns with weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant corn. Herbicide programs included acetochlor preemergence (PRE) followed by glufosinate alone or with atrazine postemergence (POST) and total POST programs consisting of single and sequential applications of glufosinate alone or tank mixed with acetochlor, atrazine, or acetochlor plus atrazine. Metolachlor PRE followed by dicamba plus atrazine early POST (EPOST) and metolachlor plus atrazine PRE were included for comparison. In the total POST treatments, mid-POST applications controlled shattercane and common cocklebur better than EPOST applications. However, yield reductions as high as 23% occurred because of early-season weed interference, although weeds were controlled later in the season. Applying atrazine with glufosinate generally increased control of giant foxtail, common cocklebur, morningglory species, and common waterhemp compared to glufosinate alone, but did not increase control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, or Pennsylvania smartweed. Corn yield was positively correlated with weed control (r = 0.88) and more strongly dependent on grass (r = 0.82) than broadleaf (r = 0.70) weed control. Net incomes were positively correlated to corn yield (r = 0.73). Four of the top six net income-producing treatments included two herbicide applications. Three of the treatments were PRE followed by POST programs, and the fourth was a sequential POST treatment of glufosinate.Nomenclature: Acetochlor; atrazine; dicamba; glufosinate; metolachlor; common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANST; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL; common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer # AMATA; giant foxtail, Setaria faberi (L.) Herrm. # SETFA; morningglory, Ipomoea spp.; Pennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pensylvanicum L. # POLPY; shattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. # SORVU; velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (L.) Medikus # ABUTH; corn, Zea mays L. # ZEAMX ‘Pioneer 34A55’.Additional index words: Corn yield, economic returns, glufosinate-resistant crop, AMATA, ABUTH, CHEAL, POLPY, SETFA, SORVU, XANST, ZEAMX.Abbreviations: ALS, acetolactate synthase; CV, coefficient of variation; EPOST, early postemergence; MPOST, mid-postemergence; POST, postemergence; PRE, preemergence; WAT, weeks after treatment.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Early-season weed interference reduced corn yield by as much as 23%.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- early-season weed interferencee0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- as high as 23%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e0“yield reductions as high as 23% occurred because of early-season weed interference”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid-POST applications controlled shattercane and common cocklebur better than EPOST applications.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- mid-POST applicationse1
- Interactor
- shattercane
Sorghum ×drummondiie1weed - Second interactor
- common cocklebure1weed
- Outcome
- controllede1
- Direction
- bettere1
- Comparator
- EPOST applicationse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e1“mid-POST applications controlled shattercane and common cocklebur better than EPOST applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Atrazine with glufosinate increased control of giant foxtail and common cocklebur compared with glufosinate alone.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- Applying atrazine with glufosinatee2
- Interactor
- giant foxtaile2weed
- Second interactor
- common cocklebure2weed
- Outcome
- controle2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- morningglory speciese2
- Comparator
- glufosinate alonee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e2“Applying atrazine with glufosinate generally increased control of giant foxtail, common cocklebur, morningglory species, and common waterhemp compared to glufosinate alone, but did not increase control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, or Pennsylvania smartweed”
Claim · model-written summary
Atrazine with glufosinate increased control of common waterhemp compared with glufosinate alone.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- Applying atrazine with glufosinatee2
- Interactor
- common waterhempe2weed
- Outcome
- controle2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Comparator
- glufosinate alonee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e2“Applying atrazine with glufosinate generally increased control of giant foxtail, common cocklebur, morningglory species, and common waterhemp compared to glufosinate alone, but did not increase control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, or Pennsylvania smartweed”
Claim · model-written summary
Atrazine with glufosinate did not increase control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf or Pennsylvania smartweed.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- Applying atrazine with glufosinatee2
- Interactor
- common lambsquarters
Chenopodium albume2weed - Second interactor
- velvetleaf
Abutilon theophrastie2weed - Outcome
- controle2
- Direction
- did not increasee2
- Qualifier
- Pennsylvania smartweede2
- Comparator
- glufosinate alonee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e2“Applying atrazine with glufosinate generally increased control of giant foxtail, common cocklebur, morningglory species, and common waterhemp compared to glufosinate alone, but did not increase control of common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, or Pennsylvania smartweed”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield was positively correlated with weed control (r = 0.88).
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- weed controle3
- Outcome
- Corn yielde3
- Direction
- positively correlatede3
- Value
- r = 0.88e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e3“Corn yield was positively correlated with weed control (r = 0.88) and more strongly dependent on grass (r = 0.82) than broadleaf (r = 0.70) weed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield depended more strongly on grass weed control (r = 0.82) than on broadleaf weed control (r = 0.70).
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- grasse3
- Outcome
- Corn yielde3
- Direction
- more strongly dependente3
- Value
- r = 0.82e3
- Qualifier
- r = 0.70e3
- Comparator
- broadleafe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e3“Corn yield was positively correlated with weed control (r = 0.88) and more strongly dependent on grass (r = 0.82) than broadleaf (r = 0.70) weed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Net income was positively correlated with corn yield (r = 0.73).
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- Net incomese4
- Direction
- positively correlatede4
- Value
- r = 0.73e4
- Comparator
- corn yielde4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e4“Net incomes were positively correlated to corn yield (r = 0.73)”
Claim · model-written summary
Four of the top six net income-producing treatments included two herbicide applications.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- net income-producing treatmentse5
- Value
- Four of the top sixe5
- Qualifier
- included two herbicide applicationse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e5“Four of the top six net income-producing treatments included two herbicide applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Three of the treatments were PRE followed by POST programs, and the fourth was a sequential POST glufosinate treatment.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- treatmentse6
- Value
- Three of the treatmentse6
- Qualifier
- PRE followed by POST programse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glufosinate-Resistant Corn”
e6“Three of the treatments were PRE followed by POST programs, and the fourth was a sequential POST treatment of glufosinate”
The same questions in other papers
glufosinate · Chenopodium album · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →atrazine · Chenopodium album · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →atrazine · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
82 papers more in this group
See all 86 papers →glufosinate · control · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
21 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →competition · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 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.