Abstract
Herbicide-resistant corn hybrids offer additional options for POST weed control in corn, and growers may benefit from information on the consistency of these weed-control strategies. Studies were conducted in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, in 2000 and 2001, to evaluate weed control among herbicide strategies for imidazolinone-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, glyphosate-resistant, and conventional corn. Isogenic hybrids were utilized to minimize variation in growth and yield potential among hybrids. The glyphosate-resistant corn postemergence (glyphosate-POST) treatment provided more consistent control of giant foxtail than the PRE, conventional corn postemergence (conventional-POST), glufosinate-resistant corn postemergence (glufosinate-POST), and imidazolinone-resistant corn postemergence (imi-POST) treatments. All four POST treatments were more consistent and provided greater control than the PRE treatment of the large-seeded broadleaf weeds velvetleaf, giant ragweed, common cocklebur, and morningglory species. Conventional-POST and imi-POST were more consistent than glufosinate-POST and glyphosate-POST treatments in controlling giant ragweed. There were no statistical differences in the variability of PRE or POST treatments for control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and redroot pigweed. Corn yield varied among locations and years. The glyphosate-POST treatment did not reduce yield relative to the weed-free treatment, the imi-POST and glufosinate-POST treatments each reduced yield in one of eight locations, and the conventional-POST treatment reduced yield in three of eight locations.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate POST more consistently controlled giant foxtail than other listed treatments.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- glyphosate-POSTe0
- Interactor
- giant foxtaile0weed
- Outcome
- control of giant foxtaile0
- Direction
- more consistente0
- Comparator
- PRE, conventional corn postemergence (conventional-POST), glufosinate-resistant corn postemergence (glufosinate-POST), and imidazolinone-resistant corn postemergence (imi-POST) treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The glyphosate-resistant corn postemergence (glyphosate-POST) treatment provided more consistent control of giant foxtail than the PRE, conventional corn postemergence (conventional-POST), glufosinate-resistant corn postemergence (glufosinate-POST), and imidazolinone-resistant corn postemergence (imi-POST) treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Four POST strategies controlled velvetleaf, ragweed, cocklebur, and morningglory more consistently and effectively than PRE.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- All four POST treatmentse0
- Interactor
- velvetleaf
Abutilon theophrastie0weed - Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- giant ragweed, common cocklebur, and morningglory speciese0
- Comparator
- PRE treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All four POST treatments were more consistent and provided greater control than the PRE treatment of the large-seeded broadleaf weeds velvetleaf, giant ragweed, common cocklebur, and morningglory species”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional POST and imidazolinone POST were more consistent against giant ragweed than glufosinate and glyphosate POST.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- Conventional-POST and imi-POSTe0
- Interactor
- giant ragweed
.jpg?width=60)
Ambrosia trifidae0weed - Outcome
- controlling giant ragweede0
- Direction
- more consistente0
- Comparator
- glufosinate-POST and glyphosate-POST treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Conventional-POST and imi-POST were more consistent than glufosinate-POST and glyphosate-POST treatments in controlling giant ragweed”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment variability did not differ statistically for control of lambsquarters, common ragweed, and pigweed.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Interactor
- common lambsquarters
Chenopodium albume0weed - Outcome
- variability of PRE or POST treatments for control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and redroot pigweede0
- Direction
- no statistical differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no statistical differences in the variability of PRE or POST treatments for control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and redroot pigweed”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield varied across places and years.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- variede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Corn yield varied among locations and years”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate POST did not reduce yield relative to weed-free corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- glyphosate-POST treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Comparator
- weed-free treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The glyphosate-POST treatment did not reduce yield relative to the weed-free treatment”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Imidazolinone POST reduced yield at one of eight locations.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- imi-POSTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- one of eight locationse0
- Comparator
- weed-free treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the imi-POST and glufosinate-POST treatments each reduced yield in one of eight locations”
e1“weed-free treatment”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate POST reduced yield at one of eight locations.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- glufosinate-POSTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- one of eight locationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the imi-POST and glufosinate-POST treatments each reduced yield in one of eight locations”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional POST reduced yield at three of eight locations.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- conventional-POST treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- three of eight locationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the conventional-POST treatment reduced yield in three of eight locations”
t0“Corn (Zea mays)”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
95 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
288 papers more in this group
See all 292 papers →Zea mays subsp. mays · Ambrosia trifida · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
herbicide · Ambrosia trifida · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
herbicide · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 500 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
647 papers more in this group
See all 651 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.