Paper · 2013 · The Open Plant Science Journal

Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability of Two-Pass Weed Management Strategies in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn

N. Soltani; R.E. Nurse; C. L. Gillard; et al.

13
claims
26
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Twelve field trials were conducted over a three-year period (2010, 2011, 2012) at different locations in southwestern Ontario, Canada to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury, weed control, environmental impact, corn yield and profit margin. No visible injury resulted from the herbicide treatments evaluated. One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosate provided good full season control of pigweed species and lady's thumb and fair control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, lamb's-quarters, barnyard grass and green foxtail. One late postemergence (LPOST) application of glyphosate provided excellent control of all weed species evaluated but corn yield was reduced due to early weed interference. The sequential application of glyphosate (EPOST fb LPOST) provided excellent control of all weed species evaluated with no adverse effect on corn yield. The sequential application of a preemergence residual herbicide followed by an application of glyphosate LPOST provided excellent full season control of all weed species evaluated and corn yield was equal to the weed free control. Among the sequential herbicide programs the lowest environmental impact was glyphosate EPOST fb LPOST and saflufenacil/dimethenamid-p, isoxaflutole + atrazine or rimsulfuron + s-metolachlor + dicamba applied PRE fb glyphosate LPOST. Based on this study, the most efficacious and profitable weed management programs in glyphosate-resistant corn are a sequential application of glyphosate or a two-pass program of a preemergence residual herbicide followed by glyphosate LPOST. The two-pass programs have glyphosate stewardship benefits.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No visible crop injury resulted from the herbicide treatments in corn.

Treatment
herbicide treatmentse2
Outcome
No visible injurye2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e2

“No visible injury resulted from the herbicide treatments evaluated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 301–367 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One EPOST glyphosate application gave good full-season control of pigweed species and lady's thumb in corn.

Treatment
One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosatee3
Interactor
pigweed speciese3weed
Second interactor
lady's thumbPersicaria maculosae3weed
Outcome
full season control of pigweed species and lady's thumbe3
Direction
goode3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Persicaria maculosa
Persicaria maculosa · Second interactorBjoertvedt · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e3

“One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosate provided good full season control of pigweed species and lady's thumb and fair control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, lamb's-quarters, barnyard grass and green foxtail”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 369–594 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One EPOST glyphosate application gave fair control of velvetleaf and common ragweed, and lamb's-quarters, in corn.

Treatment
One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosatee3
Interactor
velvetleafAbutilon theophrastie3weed
Second interactor
common ragweedAmbrosia artemisiifoliae3weed
Outcome
fair control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, lamb's-quarterse3
Direction
faire3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Abutilon theophrasti
Abutilon theophrasti · InteractorI.Sáček, senior · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ambrosia artemisiifolia · Second interactorDalgial · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e3

“One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosate provided good full season control of pigweed species and lady's thumb and fair control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, lamb's-quarters, barnyard grass and green foxtail”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 369–594 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One EPOST glyphosate application gave fair control of barnyard grass and green foxtail in corn.

Treatment
One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosatee3
Interactor
barnyard grassEchinochloa crus-gallie3weed
Second interactor
green foxtaile3weed
Outcome
barnyard grass and green foxtaile3
Direction
faire3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Echinochloa crus-galli
Echinochloa crus-galli · InteractorMichael Becker · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e3

“One early postemergence (EPOST) application of glyphosate provided good full season control of pigweed species and lady's thumb and fair control of velvetleaf, common ragweed, lamb's-quarters, barnyard grass and green foxtail”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 369–594 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One LPOST glyphosate application gave excellent control of all weed species evaluated in corn.

Treatment
One late postemergence (LPOST) application of glyphosatee4
Outcome
control of all weed species evaluatede4
Direction
excellente4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e4

“One late postemergence (LPOST) application of glyphosate provided excellent control of all weed species evaluated but corn yield was reduced due to early weed interference”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–767 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One LPOST glyphosate application reduced corn yield due to early weed interference.

Treatment
One late postemergence (LPOST) application of glyphosatee4
Outcome
corn yielde4
Direction
reducede4
Qualifier
due to early weed interferencee4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e4

“One late postemergence (LPOST) application of glyphosate provided excellent control of all weed species evaluated but corn yield was reduced due to early weed interference”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–767 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential EPOST fb LPOST glyphosate gave excellent control of all weed species evaluated in corn.

Treatment
The sequential application of glyphosate (EPOST fb LPOST)e5
Outcome
control of all weed species evaluatede5
Direction
excellente5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e5

“The sequential application of glyphosate (EPOST fb LPOST) provided excellent control of all weed species evaluated with no adverse effect on corn yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 769–920 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential EPOST fb LPOST glyphosate had no adverse effect on corn yield.

Treatment
The sequential application of glyphosate (EPOST fb LPOST)e5
Outcome
corn yielde5
Direction
no adverse effecte5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e5

“The sequential application of glyphosate (EPOST fb LPOST) provided excellent control of all weed species evaluated with no adverse effect on corn yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 769–920 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRE residual herbicide followed by LPOST glyphosate gave excellent full-season control of all weed species evaluated in corn.

Treatment
a preemergence residual herbicide followed by an application of glyphosate LPOSTe6
Outcome
full season control of all weed species evaluatede6
Direction
excellente6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e6

“The sequential application of a preemergence residual herbicide followed by an application of glyphosate LPOST provided excellent full season control of all weed species evaluated and corn yield was equal to the weed free control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 922–1151 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRE residual herbicide followed by LPOST glyphosate gave corn yield equal to the weed-free control.

Treatment
a preemergence residual herbicide followed by an application of glyphosate LPOSTe6
Outcome
corn yielde6
Direction
equale6
Comparator
weed free controle6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e6

“The sequential application of a preemergence residual herbicide followed by an application of glyphosate LPOST provided excellent full season control of all weed species evaluated and corn yield was equal to the weed free control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 922–1151 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential EPOST fb LPOST glyphosate had the lowest environmental impact among the sequential herbicide programs.

Treatment
glyphosate EPOST fb LPOSTe7
Outcome
environmental impacte7
Direction
loweste7
Comparator
the sequential herbicide programse7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e7

“Among the sequential herbicide programs the lowest environmental impact was glyphosate EPOST fb LPOST”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1153–1254 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The most efficacious and profitable weed management programs in glyphosate-resistant corn are sequential glyphosate or PRE residual followed by LPOST glyphosate.

Taxon
glyphosate-resistant corne2
Outcome
most efficacious and profitable weed management programse2

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e2

“the most efficacious and profitable weed management programs in glyphosate-resistant corn are a sequential application of glyphosate or a two-pass program of a preemergence residual herbicide followed by glyphosate LPOST”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1407–1627 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The two-pass programs have glyphosate stewardship benefits in corn.

Outcome
glyphosate stewardship benefitse2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“to compare various two-pass weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant corn for crop injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 134–233 · show in text ↑
e2

“The two-pass programs have glyphosate stewardship benefits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1629–1687 · show in text ↑

glyphosate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

77 papers: 42 positive, 35 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

73 papers more in this group

See all 77 papers →

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

41 papers: 33 positive, 8 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

glyphosate · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 36 positive, 5 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

glyphosate · Echinochloa crus-galli · 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 →

glyphosate · Abutilon theophrasti · 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 →

herbicide · Echinochloa crus-galli · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 9 positive, 3 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

herbicide · Abutilon theophrasti · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 9 positive, 4 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

herbicide · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

61 papers: 26 positive, 35 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

57 papers more in this group

See all 61 papers →

8 of 11 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.