Abstract
A study was conducted over a 3-yr period (2003, 2004, and 2005) to evaluate the effect of reduced herbicide rates - 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of the manufacturer’s recommended rate (MRR) - on weed biomass reduction, environmental impact (EI), yield, and profitability of corn (Zea mays L.) in Ontario. The herbicide rate required to provide 95% biomass reduction of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grasses was 92, 30, 41, 28, and 83% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine, >200, 119, 23, 23, and 117% of the MRR for dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, 141, 72, 46, 45, and >200% of the MRR for glufosinate plus atrazine, and 81, 29, 18, 24, and 88% of the MRR for nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, respectively. The herbicide rate required to provide 95% of weed-free corn yield was 61, 22, 130, and 11% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine, and nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, respectively. Nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr had the lowest EI. The results of profitability analysis suggested that the MRR rates do not tend to maximize profit margins. In most cases, there were no significant differences in profit margins for treatments with 40, 60, 80, and 100% of the MRR. Key words: Atrazine, dicamba, diflufenzopyr, dimethenamid, glufosinate, nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, Zea mays L.
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
For isoxaflutole plus atrazine, rates providing 95% biomass reduction were respectively 92, 30, 41, 28 and 83% MRR for velvetleaf, redroot pigweed, common ragweed, common lambsquarters and annual grasses.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- isoxaflutole plus atrazinee0
- Interactor
- velvetleaf
Abutilon theophrastie0weed - Second interactor
- redroot pigweede0weed
- Outcome
- biomass reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 92, 30, 41, 28, and 83%e0
- Qualifier
- common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grassese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Twenty-claim budget requires grouping weed-specific rate values by herbicide.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% biomass reduction of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grasses was 92, 30, 41, 28, and 83% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
For dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, corresponding 95% weed biomass reduction rates were >200, 119, 23, 23 and 117% MRR.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazinee1
- Interactor
- velvetleafAbutilon theophrastie0weed
- Second interactor
- redroot pigweede0weed
- Outcome
- biomass reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- >200, 119, 23, 23, and 117%e1
- Qualifier
- common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grassese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Twenty-claim budget requires grouping weed-specific rate values by herbicide.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% biomass reduction of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grasses”
e1“>200, 119, 23, 23, and 117% of the MRR for dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
For glufosinate plus atrazine, corresponding 95% weed biomass reduction rates were 141, 72, 46, 45 and >200% MRR.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- glufosinate plus atrazinee1
- Interactor
- velvetleafAbutilon theophrastie0weed
- Second interactor
- redroot pigweede0weed
- Outcome
- biomass reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 141, 72, 46, 45, and >200%e1
- Qualifier
- common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grassese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Twenty-claim budget requires grouping weed-specific rate values by herbicide.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% biomass reduction of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grasses”
e1“141, 72, 46, 45, and >200% of the MRR for glufosinate plus atrazine”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
For nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, corresponding 95% weed biomass reduction rates were 81, 29, 18, 24 and 88% MRR.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyre1
- Interactor
- velvetleafAbutilon theophrastie0weed
- Second interactor
- redroot pigweede0weed
- Outcome
- biomass reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 81, 29, 18, 24, and 88%e1
- Qualifier
- common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grassese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Twenty-claim budget requires grouping weed-specific rate values by herbicide.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% biomass reduction of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and annual grasses”
e1“81, 29, 18, 24, and 88% of the MRR for nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Isoxaflutole plus atrazine required 61% MRR for 95% weed-free corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- isoxaflutole plus atrazinee0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Value
- 61e0
- Qualifier
- 95%e0
- Comparator
- weed-freee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% of weed-free corn yield was 61, 22, 130, and 11% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine, and nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine required 22% MRR for 95% weed-free corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazinee0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Value
- 22e0
- Qualifier
- 95%e0
- Comparator
- weed-freee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% of weed-free corn yield was 61, 22, 130, and 11% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine, and nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate plus atrazine required 130% MRR for 95% weed-free corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- glufosinate plus atrazinee0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Value
- 130e0
- Qualifier
- 95%e0
- Comparator
- weed-freee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% of weed-free corn yield was 61, 22, 130, and 11% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine, and nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr required 11% MRR for 95% weed-free corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyre0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Value
- 11%e0
- Qualifier
- 95%e0
- Comparator
- weed-freee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The herbicide rate required to provide 95% of weed-free corn yield was 61, 22, 130, and 11% of the MRR for isoxaflutole plus atrazine, dimethenamid plus dicamba/atrazine, glufosinate plus atrazine, and nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr had lowest environmental impact.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron plus dicamba/diflufenzopyr had the lowest EI.”
Claim · model-written summary
Recommended manufacturer rates did not tend to maximize profit margins.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“The results of profitability analysis suggested that the MRR rates do not tend to maximize profit margins.”
Claim · model-written summary
In most cases profit margins did not differ significantly among 40, 60, 80 and 100% MRR treatments.
- Treatment
- 40, 60, 80, and 100% of the MRRe0
- Outcome
- profit marginse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Qualifier
- In most casese0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“In most cases, there were no significant differences in profit margins for treatments with 40, 60, 80, and 100% of the MRR.”
The same questions in other papers
glufosinate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →nicosulfuron · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 papers →atrazine · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
204 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
236 papers more in this group
See all 240 papers →dimethenamid · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
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 →isoxaflutole · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →rimsulfuron · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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
- negative
- no effect
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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.