Abstract
Field trials were conducted in no-till field corn in northern Missouri to compare weed control and crop response of metolachlor plus atrazine applied under five preplant herbicide management practices. The practices consisted of (1) applying the entire dose of metolachlor plus atrazine 15, 30, or 45 d early preplant (EPP), (2) applying a split application of an EPP (67%) followed by (fb) a PRE (33%), (3) applying the entire dose PRE, (4) applying metolachlor PRE fb dicamba early post (EPOST), or (5) applying atrazine alone EPOST. Weed control at 7 wk after planting was more variable with EPP treatments than with EPP fb PRE or PRE treatments. Giant foxtail and fall panicum control was greatest with treatments that included metolachlor PRE. Velvetleaf and common cocklebur control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST and was generally unacceptable (< 80%) with any soil-applied herbicide treatment. Common lambsquarters control was greater than 90% with all treatments that included metolachlor, atrazine, or dicamba, regardless of timing. Corn yields were slightly higher with EPP fb PRE and PRE fb EPOST dicamba than with EPP alone. The results suggest that herbicide applications made nearer to the date of planting provide less variable weed control and corn yield than treatments made more than 15 d EPP.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control at seven weeks was more variable with EPP than with EPP followed by PRE or PRE treatments.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- EPP treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Weed controle0
- Direction
- more variablee0
- Qualifier
- 7 wk after plantinge0
- Comparator
- EPP fb PRE or PRE treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Weed control at 7 wk after planting was more variable with EPP treatments than with EPP fb PRE or PRE treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Giant foxtail control was greatest when metolachlor was applied PRE.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- metolachlor PREe0
- Interactor
- Giant foxtaile0weed
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Giant foxtail and fall panicum control was greatest with treatments that included metolachlor PRE.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall panicum control was greatest when metolachlor was applied PRE.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- metolachlor PREe0
- Interactor
- fall panicum
Panicum dichotomiflorume0weed - Outcome
- fall panicum controle0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Giant foxtail and fall panicum control was greatest with treatments that included metolachlor PRE.”
Claim · model-written summary
Velvetleaf control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- atrazine or dicamba EPOSTe0
- Interactor
- Velvetleaf
Abutilon theophrastie0weed - Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Velvetleaf and common cocklebur control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST and was generally unacceptable (< 80%) with any soil-applied herbicide treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Common cocklebur control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- atrazine or dicamba EPOSTe0
- Interactor
- common cocklebure0weed
- Outcome
- common cocklebur controle0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Velvetleaf and common cocklebur control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST and was generally unacceptable (< 80%) with any soil-applied herbicide treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Velvetleaf control was generally below 80% with soil-applied herbicides.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- soil-applied herbicide treatmente0
- Interactor
- VelvetleafAbutilon theophrastie0weed
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- unacceptablee0
- Value
- < 80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Velvetleaf and common cocklebur control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST and was generally unacceptable (< 80%) with any soil-applied herbicide treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Common cocklebur control was generally below 80% with soil-applied herbicides.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- soil-applied herbicide treatmente0
- Interactor
- common cocklebure0weed
- Outcome
- common cocklebur controle0
- Direction
- unacceptablee0
- Value
- < 80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Velvetleaf and common cocklebur control was greatest with atrazine or dicamba EPOST and was generally unacceptable (< 80%) with any soil-applied herbicide treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Common lambsquarters control exceeded 90% with all treatments including metolachlor, atrazine or dicamba regardless of timing.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- metolachlor, atrazine, or dicambae0
- Interactor
- Common lambsquarters
Chenopodium albume0weed - Outcome
- Common lambsquarters controle0
- Direction
- greater thane0
- Value
- 90%e0
- Qualifier
- regardless of timinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
e0“Common lambsquarters control was greater than 90% with all treatments that included metolachlor, atrazine, or dicamba, regardless of timing.”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield was slightly higher with EPP followed by PRE than with EPP alone.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- EPP fb PREe0
- Outcome
- Corn yieldse0
- Direction
- slightly highere0
- Comparator
- EPP alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Corn yields were slightly higher with EPP fb PRE and PRE fb EPOST dicamba than with EPP alone.”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield was slightly higher with PRE followed by EPOST dicamba than with EPP alone.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- PRE fb EPOST dicambae0
- Outcome
- Corn yieldse0
- Direction
- slightly highere0
- Comparator
- EPP alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Corn yields were slightly higher with EPP fb PRE and PRE fb EPOST dicamba than with EPP alone.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer that applications nearer planting give less variable weed control and corn yield than applications more than 15 days EPP.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- herbicide applications made nearer to the date of planting provide less variable weed control and corn yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results suggest that herbicide applications made nearer to the date of planting provide less variable weed control and corn yield than treatments made more than 15 d EPP.”
The same questions in other papers
dicamba · Abutilon theophrasti · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →dicamba · Chenopodium album · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →atrazine · Chenopodium album · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →atrazine · Abutilon theophrasti · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →dicamba · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →metolachlor · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →dicamba · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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
- negative
- negative
- no effect
82 papers more in this group
See all 86 papers →8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.