Paper · 2025 · TURKISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Chemical weed control strategies for sweet corn in Türkiye’s diverse production areas

ZÜBEYDE FİLİZ ARSLAN; AHMET ULUDAĞ; HÜSEYİN GÜNGÖR; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Sweet corn production in Türkiye is failing to match growing demand from consumers and the food industry. Weeds severely limit sweet corn production, yet only a single herbicide is registered in Türkiye. Due to labor costs, hand weeding is no longer affordable and growers are demanding cost-effective weed control strategies for sweet corn production. Nine treatments including preemergence (PRE) and/or postemergence (POST) herbicides were tested across the country’s diverse growing environments. Compared to the weedy control, all treatments increased the number of marketable ears. Only two treatments—s-metolachlor plus terbuthylazine followed by isoxaflutole plus cyprosulfamide plus theincarbazone-methyl and dimethenamid followed by mesotrione plus nicosulfuron—provided consistent late-season weed control and fully protected crop yield. This study quantifies the value that additional herbicide registrations in Türkiye could have for controlling problematic weeds in the country’s sweet corn production.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All herbicide treatments increased marketable ears relative to the weedy control.

Taxon
Sweet cornt0
Treatment
all treatmentse0
Outcome
number of marketable earse0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
weedy controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Compared to the weedy control, all treatments increased the number of marketable ears”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–585 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The s-metolachlor plus terbuthylazine program followed by isoxaflutole plus cyprosulfamide plus theincarbazone-methyl consistently controlled late-season weeds and protected yield.

Taxon
Sweet cornt0
Treatment
s-metolachlor plus terbuthylazine followed by isoxaflutole plus cyprosulfamide plus theincarbazone-methyle0
Outcome
late-season weed control and fully protected crop yielde0
Direction
fully protectede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“s-metolachlor plus terbuthylazine followed by isoxaflutole plus cyprosulfamide plus theincarbazone-methyl and dimethenamid followed by mesotrione plus nicosulfuron—provided consistent late-season weed control and fully protected crop yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–846 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The dimethenamid program followed by mesotrione plus nicosulfuron consistently controlled late-season weeds and protected yield.

Taxon
Sweet cornt0
Treatment
dimethenamid followed by mesotrione plus nicosulfurone0
Outcome
late-season weed control and fully protected crop yielde0
Direction
fully protectede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“dimethenamid followed by mesotrione plus nicosulfuron—provided consistent late-season weed control and fully protected crop yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 717–846 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–47 · show in text ↑

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

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

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

38 papers: 36 positive, 2 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

dimethenamid · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

cyprosulfamide · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

terbutylazine · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

mesotrione · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

27 papers: 27 positive, 0 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 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.