Influence of Application Timings, Rates, and Adjuvants on Tiencarbazone-Methyl Plus Isoxaflutole and Mesotrione with Nicosulfuron and Rimsulfuron on Weed Control and Yield of Maize
by
, , , and
Robert Idziak
1
,
Tomasz Sakowicz
1,
Hubert Waligóra
1,
Piotr Szulc
1,*
,
Leszek Majchrzak
1,
Barbara Stachowiak
2
and
Małgorzata Neumann
1 1
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agronomy, Horticulture and Bioengineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznań, Poland
2
Department of Technology of Plant Origin Food, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Ul. Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(1), 73; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010073
Submission received: 13 November 2023
/
Revised: 19 December 2023
/
Accepted: 28 December 2023
/
Published: 29 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Protection, Diseases, Pests and Weeds)
Abstract
Weed control in maize is usually limited to a single herbicide treatment, but the application of two or more herbicides is associated with many benefits, e.g., increasing the spectrum of control weeds, reducing the risk of damage to crops by using reduced rates of herbicides, limiting their residues in the soil or crop, etc. This field experiment was conducted in the years 2016–2018 to determine whether the split application of soil-applied thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole and foliar-applied mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron, in reduced rates with adjuvants, can contribute to enhancing herbicide effectiveness and increasing maize yield. Weed control in maize in a split-dose system with a mixture of thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole at strongly reduced rates with the addition of UAN and the adjuvant Atpolan SoilMaxx or Grounded, and then mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron at strongly reduced rates with UAN and Atpolan SoilMaxx or Actirob 842 EC allowed for great control of weeds. The total amount of substances was slightly higher than in single treatments with adjuvants, but lower than for individual active substances, leading to a reduction in the amount of active substances reaching the environment, while maintaining very high herbicide efficacy.
1. Introduction
Of all the biotic and abiotic factors that threaten maize, weeds are considered to be one of the most important aspects limiting the yield of this crop [1,2]. Maize does not compete with weeds for at least a month after sowing, allowing them to grow freely. There are currently more than 100 weed species in maize, of which around 40 are common and can lead to a significant yield reduction of up to 85% [3,4,5]. Even a few highly competitive weeds can reduce yield, and the most dangerous weeds commonly found in maize include Chenopodium album L. and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. [6]. The presence of weeds in a crop is associated with an increase in production costs [7,8]. Weed control in maize is therefore essential and is mainly based on the use of herbicides. Therefore, due to the increasing economic importance of maize agrophages, it is essential that appropriate measures are taken to minimize their negative impact on yields through rational plant protection. At the same time, the continuous intensification of production also makes it necessary to take greater care to protect the environment. Herbicides should be selected to be as effective as possible while being as safe as possible for human health, the environment, and non-target organisms [9].
The herbicidal effect is the result of the interaction of many factors, including weather conditions, weeds and their properties, the application technique and the behavior of the active substance on and in the plant surface, the herbicide rate, or the interaction with other pesticides or adjuvants [10,11,12]. Chemical weed control in maize is usually limited to a single herbicide treatment during the vegetation season [13]. The effect of herbicides is then limited in time and is most often insufficient in the case of secondary weed infestation, and may result in significant yield losses [14]; wherefore, farmers should pay particular attention to the proper selection of herbicides depending on the weed community [15]. The application of two or more herbicides (active substances) is associated with many benefits, such as increasing the spectrum of weeds controlled, reducing the risk of damages to crop plants by using reduced rates of herbicides, thus limiting their residues in the soil or crop, delaying the emergence of resistant weed species, reducing soil compaction by reducing the number of passes in the field, and reducing production costs by saving time and labor [16].
Optimization of the above processes includes refinement of the treatment technique and the use of adjuvants, specific to both soil- and foliar-applied herbicides, to reduce the impact of herbicide limiting factors [17]. In addition, it may be beneficial to apply a mixture of active substances in two treatments carried out at intervals of several days [18]. The advantage of such an application of a herbicide mixture, especially if it contains active substances with different mechanisms of action, is also the inhibition of the selection of herbicide-resistant biotypes [19]. However, using herbicides twice involves additional costs and inconveniences in organizational structure, which may discourage users from using this method of weed control in maize.
The aim of this field study was to determine whether split application of a mixture of soil-applied herbicides (thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole) and foliar-applied ones (mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron), before and after maize emergence in reduced rates with adjuvants, can contribute to enhancing herbicide effectiveness, increasing maize yield and improving the profitability of its cultivation.
2. Materials and Methods
The field experiment was conducted in Research and Education Center Brody (REC Br, N 52°26.030; E 016°18.123) in the years 2016–2018. REC Br belongs to Poznań University of Life Sciences and is located in West–Central Poland. The field study arrangement, plots size, description of maize variety, and soil description are shown in Table 1. Maize seeds were sown in April/May with a seed drill Monosem, and ears were harvested in September/October from middle rows of each plot.
During the field study, the following herbicide mixtures were used, thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole (T + I at full (FR) at reduced rates (RR), 30 + 75; 18 + 45, and 13.5 + 33.8 g ha−1, Adengo 315 SC, Bayer S.A.S, Lyon, France), and mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuronu (M + N + R, 120 + 40 + 10; 72 + 24 + 6, and 54 + 18 + 4.5 g ha−1, Arigo 51 WG, DuPont, Geneva, Switzerland). Herbicides were applied (T + I—preemergence—0; M + N + R—postemergence, maize BBCH 13–15—A) at full rate (FR) and reduced rates (RR 1, reduced by 40%) alone and with adjuvants. Adjuvants for pre- and postemergence applied herbicides were used, respectively, AtSM (Atpolan Soil Maxx, mineral oil with methyl esters of rapeseed oil fatty acids, emulsifiers, and anti-drift substances), Gr (Grounded, refined paraffin oil with ethoxylated alcohol and fatty acids), AtB (Atpolan Bio 80 EC, rapeseed oil fatty acid methyl esters, surfactants and pH buffer), and Ac (Actirob 842 EC, rapeseed oil methyl esters). Mixtures of herbicides at RR 2 (rates reduced by 45%) were applied using split application, first time after weed emergence, BBCH 11–12—B, and next time after the next weed emergence, BBCH 11–12—C, with addition of AtSM (0.5 L ha−1), Gr (0.4 L ha−1), Ac (2.0 L ha−1), or AtB (1.5 L ha−1). As a mineral adjuvant, UAN 28 (urea ammonium nitrate) was used.
To apply mixtures of herbicides and adjuvants, a wheelbarrow CO2-pressurized sprayer was used. The sprayer was equipped with TeeJet DG 11002 VS flat fan nozzle tips (50 cm spacing) with a boom height of 50 cm, calibrated to deliver 230 L ha−1 at pressure of 2.2 Bars, and a ground speed of 3.3 km h−1. Six weeks after last herbicide application, weeds from randomly selected area (2 × 0.7 m−2) from each plot were collected. Weeds were divided into species, weighed, and the weed control efficacy (WCE) was calculated using formula [20]: WCE = [(Wc − Wt)/Wc] × 100, where Wc is the weed fresh weight in the control, and Wt is the weed fresh weight in the treated plot. The yield was determined by harvesting the two center rows of each plot, and the maize grain yield was expressed at a moisture content of 15%.
To describe the weather conditions during maize vegetation season, the Sielianinow’s hydrothermal index was used. Index k was calculated based on the formula: k = P/0.1 ∑t, were P is the sum of atmospheric rainfall (mm), and ∑t is the sum of air temperature > 0 °C. Results were presented for classes of the discussed coefficient, according to the methodology of Skowera na Pula [21], where k ≤ 0.4—extremely dry; 0.4 < k ≤ 0.7—very dry; 0.7 < k ≤ 1.0—dry; 1.0 < k ≤ 1.3—slightly dry; 1.3 < k ≤ 1.6—optimum; 1.6 < k ≤ 2.0—slightly humid; 2.0 < k ≤ 2.5—humid; 2.5 < k ≤ 3.0—very humid; k > 3.0—extremely humid. Weather conditions data during and after each application are shown in Table 2.
Statistical procedures were conducted using Statistica 13.3 software (StatSoft Ltd., Kraków, Poland). To determine the impact of treatments on efficacy and yield, analysis of variance was used, and differences between treatments were determined using protected Tukey’s HSD test at p = 0.05. The Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to refer to a relationship between chemical weed control and maize grain yield, plant density, height, and weight of 1000 kernels.
3. Results
The meteorological conditions during the maize growing season varied among the years (Figure 1). In the first year of the study, the Sielianinow coefficient (k) indicated good hydrothermal conditions in the maize growing season. Only in September did the coefficient k = 0.0–0.3 show the occurrence of drought. The next year of research was exceptionally wet, and in this case, the k index indicated very good conditions for maize. Record rainfall in July caused the k coefficient to be 5.1 in the third decade of that month. In 2018, from May to the second decade of July, the k coefficient results indicated very poor hydrothermal conditions. Only heavy rain caused the k coefficient to be 6.5 for the second decade of July. Unfortunately, there was a drought in the rest of the maize growing season, which was only interrupted by heavier rainfall in the third decade of September.
The weather conditions during the treatments and in the first week after herbicide applications are shown in Table 2. During treatment 0, the soil temperature was recorded between 5.7 and 8.7 °C, and air humidity between 63 and 90%. In the first week after treatments, the air temperature ranged from 3.9 to 18.5 °C, with precipitation of 4.4–22.0 mm. During treatment A, the air temperature was recorded between 17.5 and 19.7 °C, and the air humidity 67 and 87%. The first week after treatments, the air temperature ranged from 13.7 to 23.5 °C, with precipitation of 0.0–14.0 mm. During treatment B, the air temperature was recorded between 13.9 and 18.6, and the air humidity was 70–76%. In the first week after the treatments, the air temperature ranged from 13.4 to 22.0, with precipitation of 3.4–44.3 mm. During treatment C, the air temperature ranged from 15.1 to 22.3, and air humidity 55–83%. In the first week after the treatments, the air temperature ranged from 14.5 to 23.5 °C, with precipitation of 0.2–28.8 mm. In 2017–2018, a few hours after treatment, there was a rainfall of slightly more than 2 mm, and one of the foliar treatments experienced rainfall, only 1.2 mm, and this occurred in the late evening long after the treatment had been carried out (data are not presented).
In the first year of the field trial, 13 weed species were found in maize, 17 in the second, and 10 in the third. However, the weed community consisted mainly of species like Ch. album (share in community 50–63%) and E. crus-galli (12–23%) which turned up every year (Table 3). Other species, for example, Veronica persica Poir., Fumaria officinalis L., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik., Solanum nigrum L., Geranium pusillum L., Anthemis arvensis L., Polygonum aviculare L., and Fallotopia convonvulus (L.) A. Löve, appeared less frequently (every one or two years) and in small numbers (1–5% contribution to the composition of the weed community).
A T + I mixture applied at the full rate (FR) resulted in 91, 84, and 100% control of CHEAL (Table 4). The reduced rate (RR 1) led to a decrease in efficacy. When the adjuvant AtSM was added, the efficacy of the T + I mixture at RR 1 increased. Slightly worse results were obtained with the addition of the Gr adjuvant. An M + N + R mixture at FR reduced CHEAL fresh weight by 88, 91, and 100%, and a lower rate (RR 1) decreased herbicidal efficacy. The addition of the adjuvant AtB raised the efficacy to 89, 100, and 100%. Slightly better results were obtained with the addition of the adjuvant Ac. The highest CHEAL control was obtained when T + I was used in the first treatment and M + N + R at RR 2 in the second one with the addition of UAN and other adjuvants.
The T + I mixture was applied at the full rate (FR) for the ECHCG control, resulting in 90, 73, and 100% efficacy (Table 4). The reduced rate (RR 1) led to a decrease in efficacy, but when the adjuvant AtSM was added, the efficacy of the T + I mixture at RR 1 increased. Slightly worse results were obtained with the addition of the Gr adjuvant.
The M + N + R mixture at FR reduced ECHCG fresh weight by 83, 83, and 93%. The lower rate (RR 1) decreased the herbicidal efficacy. The addition of the adjuvant AtB raised the efficacy, similar to the addition of the adjuvant Ac. The highest ECHCG control was obtained when T + I was used in the first treatment and M + N + R at RR 2 in the second one with the addition of UAN and other adjuvants.
Generally, the control effect of M + N + R applied with or without adjuvants showed an upward trend every year of the study. In the case of soil-applied T + I, weed control decreased in 2017, probably because of low temperatures during application (only 3.7 °C) and the first week after application (3.9–16.4 °C). Under these conditions, despite rather sufficient rainfall, weed emergence occurred later, and the amount of herbicide available in the soil was not sufficient to effectively control the weeds.
A comparison of the effects of herbicide application rates and timing on total herbicide efficacy in 2016–2018 shows much greater differences in efficacy between herbicide mixtures applied in a single treatment and those applied in a split-rate system, in two treatments. The highest efficacy and smallest differences between combinations were found in 2018 when weed pressure in the plots was lower (Table 5). The T + I mixture at the FR had efficacy levels of 89, 74, and 99%. Reducing the dose resulted in a reduction in herbicidal efficacy and addition of the adjuvant AtSM increased efficacy. Slightly worse results were obtained when the adjuvant Gr was added.
The M + N + R mixture at the FR reduced fresh weed mass by 82, 72, and 99%, and reducing the rate to RR 1 led to a decrease in efficacy. The addition of adjuvant AtB increased the efficacy similar to adjuvant Ac.
Herbicide efficacy was the highest when herbicides were applied in two treatments, first T + I, and in the next treatment, M + N + R at RR 2. Depending on the treatments and year of the study, herbicide efficacy was between 98–100%.
Weed control impacted maize grain yields (Table 5). The lowest maize grain yield each year was obtained from the control plots, the highest of which from plots where two herbicide treatments were applied, similar to the T + I mixture at FR. A decrease in grain yield followed the rate reduction, but the difference was only statistically significant in 2018. The addition of the adjuvant AtSM to T + I at RR 1 translated to an increase in grain yield in 2016 and 2018 to the same level as when the FR of herbicide was applied. In 2017, there was also a yield increase but it was lower. The use of the adjuvant Gr also had a positive effect but weaker than that of AtSM. After the application of the M + N + R mixture, yields were lower than with T + I. The exception was 2016 when a rate reduction resulted in a decrease in maize grain yield. After the addition of the adjuvant AtB, the maize grain yield was higher than in plots where the herbicide at FR was applied. The difference in grain yield was evident every year. The application of the adjuvant Ac increased the grain yield and it was better than when the herbicide was applied at the FR. The highest yields were acheived when herbicides with adjuvants were applied in a split-rate system.
The lowest rates of herbicide active ingredients were introduced using T + I at RR 1 without and with adjuvants. This was followed by the reduced rate of M + N + R with and without adjuvants and T + I at FR. The highest amount of active ingredients was introduced after the application of M + N + R at the FR, and next in a split-rate system, at strongly reduced rates together with adjuvants and UAN, with the doses of specific active substances in this system being lower than those of the other treatments (Figure 2).
Figure 3 shows only the relationships for which correlation coefficients were found to exist on the basis of the results of the correlation matrix analysis, i.e., the correlations among weed control efficacy, maize grain yield, weed mass, maize plant height, and the weight of 1000 grains. A different linear relationship was confirmed only between the efficacy of T + I at RR 1, M + N + R at RR 1, and M + N + R + Ac at RR 1 (Figure 3), and between weed mass and maize plant height and weight of 1000 kernels. However, in the case of yield, the estimated model can explain only 36–50% of the variability of the dependent variable, i.e., the yield in relation to herbicide efficacy. In the event of weed infestation, plant height and kernel weight of the model explains 55–61% of variability. The results of the analysis indicate that weed control (efficacy of herbicides) had a positive effect on the grain yield of maize. At the same time, statistical analysis showed that maize plant height and the weight of 1000 kernels increase linearly to weed infestation.
4. Discussion
Weather conditions influence the growth and development of maize plants. The development of weeds is also strongly impacted by the course of the post-weather, but they are much better adapted to cope with unfavorable conditions [22]. For optimal growth and development of maize plants, different temperatures are required depending on its development stage and the time of day. During the day, the optimal temperature is between 25 and 33 °C. However, during the night, maize responds better to lower temperatures, around 17–22 °C. According to [23], the average optimal temperature for the entire growing season is 20–22 °C. Thermal stress during corn growing season may lead not only to a decrease in yield but also to deterioration of its quality [24]. Another factor determining yields is the amount and distribution of rainfall during the growing season. Despite water efficiency, the water needs of maize are considerable and depend on the developmental stage of the maize. Weather conditions varied during the 2016–2018 field experiment at ZDD Brody. The first two years of the study were favorable for maize cultivation. The worst conditions by far for plant growth and development occurred in the last year of the study and were caused by the occurrence of drought. Weather conditions during and shortly after treatment are important for effectiveness, as they can significantly affect the herbicidal effect of the herbicides used [25]. Herbicide action favors temperatures in the range of 10–25 °C and relative humidity above 60% [26]. For high herbicidal efficacy, favorable weather conditions are required for at least a few hours per day for several consecutive days after treatment [27].
To optimize farm management practices, widen the weed control spectrum, enhance application efficiency, and manage herbicide resistance, herbicide mixtures with different modes of action and active ingredients are applied. Conditions during and 1 week after treatments at REC Brody were generally favorable for the activity of mixtures consisting of thiencarbazone-methyl, (ALS inhibitor) + isoxaflutole (inhibitor of pigment formation), T + I at full and reduced rates, and mesotrione (inhibitor of pigment formation) + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuronu (both ALS inhibitors), M + N + R, at full and reduces rates. The earliest treatments with the T + I mixture, applied before maize emergence, experienced lower than recommended temperatures in the first two years of the study. This was one of the factors that resulted in the lower efficacy of herbicides applied during this period. The most favorable thermal conditions for herbicide activity occurred in 2018 which is one of the reasons for the observed significantly higher herbicide efficacy. Depending on the soil type, excessive rainfall (above 25 mm) especially immediately after treatment can cause the herbicide to leach deep into the soil profile, resulting in a reduction in its effectiveness [28,29].
Slight rainfall did not adversely affect the effectiveness of the applied herbicides. Other factors such as relative humidity and precipitation before and after treatment favored the action of the soil herbicides. In the case of the foliar treatments, thermal conditions, humidity, and precipitation before and after the treatment had a favorable effect on the effectiveness of the herbicides. The occurrence of heavy rainfall immediately after spraying leads to spray droplets being flushed from the plant surface and reduces retention and absorption times. On the other hand, low rainfall improves herbicide uptake by wetting the dried droplets on the leaf surface [30]. Inadequate rainfall or a complete lack of rainfall causes water stress in plants, which leads to a reduction in herbicide effectiveness. This is due to poorer movement of substances and reduced plant transpiration [31].
The basis for the treatment is knowledge of the composition of the weed community and its developmental stages. This is essential in order to correctly determine the timing of herbicide application in maize which mostly reduced to a single herbicide treatment [13]. It is not always effective enough because the activity of herbicide is limited in time and significant yield losses can occur if secondary weeds occur [14]. If the treatment is carried out too early or late, weed control may not be satisfactory, which will translate to a decrease in grain yield [32]. Reducing the risk of secondary weed infestation and the need for repeated treatments is an advantage of split-rate weed control. In this case, the application dates are determined by following weed emergence. An additional benefit of such a solution is to keep the field free of weeds throughout the maize growing season [33]. However, applying strongly reduced herbicide rates in a split-rate system, despite its high efficacy, generates additional costs and requires additional labor [34]. Our own research indicates that the application of herbicides in a split-rate system using different mixtures of active substances with different mechanisms of action in each treatment yields the same or better results as herbicides applied only once pre- or post-emergence at full doses, regardless of the application conditions.
According to [35,36,37], agriculture is one of the biggest threats that reduces biodiversity, mainly through the use of pesticides in agricultural production [38]. Studies [39] indicate that in the case of maize, the main source of emissions of active substances into the environment is herbicides; therefore, all possible solutions to reduce this should be applied. In the conducted research, the lowest rates of herbicides were introduced into the environment when the T + I mixture at a reduced rate was applied, but the effectiveness of the treatment even with adjuvants was not satisfactory and had a negative impact on the yield. In the case of the M + N + R mixture, the tests showed that the addition of the adjuvant allowed for the reduction of the rate of the herbicide, introducing smaller amounts of active substances into the environment, while maintaining the effectiveness of the treatment. In split-rate treatments, a relatively high amount of active ingredient was introduced two times. Their separation in time and the addition of adjuvants and UAN allowed for a reduction in the negative impact on the environment compared to a single treatment with a similar amount of active substance.
Weed control in maize in a split-dose system with a mixture of thiencarbazone + isoxaflutole at a strongly reduced dose (11.5 g a.i. ha−1 + 33.8 g a.i. ha−1) with the addition of UAN and the adjuvant Atpolan SoilMaxx or Grounded, and then mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron also in a strongly reduced dose (54.0 g a.i. ha−1 + 18.0 g a.i. ha−1 + 4.5 g a.i. ha−1) with the addition of UAN and adjuvant Atpolan SoilMaxx or Actirob 842 EC allowed for very effective control of the weed. The total amount of substances was slightly higher than in single treatments with adjuvants, but was lower for individual active substances, leading to a reduction in the amount of active substances reaching the environment, while maintaining very high herbicide efficacy.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.I. and T.S.; methodology, R.I.; software, R.I.; validation, H.W., P.S. and L.M.; formal analysis, R.I.; investigation, R.I. and T.S.; resources, R.I.; data curation, H.W., L.M. and P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.I.; writing—review and editing, R.I.; visualization, B.S. and M.N.; supervision, R.I.; project administration, R.I.; funding acquisition, R.I. and T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Publication was financed within the framework of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s program: “Regional Excellence Initiative” in the years 2019–2023 (No. 005/RID/2018/19)”, financing amount 12,000,000.00 PL.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Sharma, N.; Rayamajhi, M. Different aspects of weed management in maize (Zea mays L.): A brief review. Adv. Agric. 2022, 2022, 7960175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doǧan, M.N.; Ünay, A.; Boz, Ö.; Albay, F. Determination of optimum weed control timing in maize (Zea mays L.). Turk. J. Agric. For. 2004, 28, 349–354. [Google Scholar]
- Idziak, R.; Woźnica, Z. Efficacy of reduced rates of soil applied dimethenamid-P and pendimethalin mixture followed by postemergence herbicides in maize. Agriculture 2020, 10, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerrudo, D.; Page, E.; Tollenaar, M.; Stewart, G.; Swanton, C.J. Mechanisms of yield loss in maize caused by weed competition. Weed Sci. 2012, 60, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zystro, J.P.; de Leon, N.; Tracy, W.F. Analysis of traits related to weed competitiveness in sweet corn (Zea mays L.). Sustainability 2012, 4, 543–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, M.; Böhringer, N.; Möhring, J.; Rueda-Ayala, V.; Gutjahr, C.; Gerhards, R. Long-term changes in weed occurrence, yield and use of herbicides in maize in southwestern Germany, with implications for the determination of economic thresholds. Weed Res. 2014, 54, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idziak, R.; Waligóra, H.; Szuba, V. The influence of agronomical and chemical weed control on weeds of corn. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2022, 62, 215–222. [Google Scholar]
- Imoloame, E.O. Agronomic and economic performance of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by seed bed configuration and weed control treatments. Open Agric. 2021, 6, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P.; Maipas, S.; Kotampasi, C.; Stamatis, P.; Hens, L. Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haliniarz, M.; Chojnacka, S.; Rusecki, H.; Gawęda, D.; Łukasz, J. The effect of combined use of herbicide and growth retardants as well as diversified mineral fertilization on weed infestation of spring wheat. Agron. Sci. 2018, 74, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasahara, T.; Takeuchi, T.; Koyama, K.; Kuzuma, S. Effects of environmental factors on the herbicidal activity and phytotoxicity of ipfencarbazone. J. Pestic. Sci. 2018, 43, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matzenbacher, F.O.; Vidal, R.A.; Merotto, J.R.; Trezzi, M.M. Environmental and physiological factors that affect the efficacy of herbicides that inhibit the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase: A literature review. Planta Daninha 2014, 32, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ikley, J.; Christoffers, M.; Dalley, C.; Endres, G.; Graming, G.; Howatt, K.; Jenks, B.; Law, Q.; Lim, C.; Ostlie, M.; et al. North Dakota Weed Control Guide. North Dak. State Univ. Ext. Serv. Publ. 2023, W253-23, 1–136. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
- Vahedi, A.; Bakhshi, Z.; Fakhari, R.; Vahidipour, H.R. Evaluation of competitiveness of corn and pigweed in nitrogen levels under pigweed densities by corn yield converse relations. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2013, 5, 1442–1444. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
- Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G. Integrated Weed Management in Herbaceous Field Crops. Agronomy 2020, 10, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, G.F.; Young, B.G.; Dayan, F.E.; Streibig, J.C.; Takano, H.K.; Merotto, A., Jr.; Avila, L.A. Herbicide mixtures: Interactions and modeling. Adv. Weed Sci. 2022, 40, e020220051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pacanoski, Z. Herbicides and adjuvants. In Herbicides, Physiology of Action, and Safety; InTech: Houston, TX, USA, 2015; pp. 125–147. [Google Scholar]
- Woźnica, Z.; Idziak, R. Influence of herbicide application timings, rates and adjuvant type on weed control and yield of maize grown for forage. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2010, 9, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
- Ofosu, R.; Agyemang, E.D.; Márton, A.; Pásztör, G.; Taller, J.; Kazinczi, G. Herbicide resistance: Managing weeds in a changing world. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Dhaka, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Singh, S.; Punia, S.S. Weed management indices as affected by different weed control treatments in pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 3490–3494. [Google Scholar]
- Skowera, B.; Puła, J. Pluviometric extreme conditions in spring season in Poland in the years 1971–2000). Acta Agrophys. 2004, 3, 171–177. [Google Scholar]
- Pilipavicius, V. Influence of climate change on weed vegetation. Global Warming. In Causes, Impacts and Remedies; Singh, B.R., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2015; pp. 89–114. [Google Scholar]
- Neil, R.E.; Newman, J.E. Growing Season Characteristics and Requirements in the Corn Belt; Cooperative Extension Service; Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Siebers, M.H.; Slattery, R.A.; Yendrek, C.R.; Locke, A.M.; Drag, D.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Bernacchi, C.J.; Ort, D.R. Simulated heat waves during maize reproductive stages alter reproductive growth but have no lasting effect when applied during vegetative stages. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 240, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurasik, M.; Kolářová, M.; Kučera, J. Effect of weather conditions on efficacy of different herbicides used in Bromus sterilis control. Weed Res. 2023, 63, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatterman-Valenti, H.; Pitty, A.; Owen, M. Effect of environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) leaf wax and fluazifop-P absorption. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varanasi, A.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Jugulam, M. Impact of climate change factors on weeds and herbicide efficacy. Adv. Agron. 2016, 135, 107–146. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrel, M.A.; Whitson, T.D.; Miller, S.D. Basic Guide to Weeds and Herbicides; Cooperative Extension Service; The University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Department of Plant Sciences: Laramie, WY, USA, 2004; Volume MP19, pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Boerboom, C.M.; Stolenberg, D.E.; Jeschke, M.R.; Trower, T.L.; Gaska, M.J. Factrors affecting glyphosate control of common lambsquarters. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 2006, 61, 54. [Google Scholar]
- Palma-Bautista, C.; Vazquez-Garcia, J.G.; Travlos, I.; Tataridas, A.; Kantas, P.; Dominquez-Valenzuela, J.A.; De Prado, R. Effect of adjuvant on glyphosate effectiveness, retention, absorption and translocation in Lolium rigidum and Conyza canadiensis. Plants 2020, 9, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zanatta, J.F.; Procópio, S.O.; Manica, R.; Pauletto, E.A.; Cargnelutti, F.A.; Vargas, L.; Sganzerla, D.C.; Rosenthal, M.D.A.; Pinto, J.J.O. Soil water contents and fomesafen efficacy in controlling Amaranthus hybridis. Planta Daninha 2008, 26, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grzanka, M.; Sobiech, Ł.; Idziak, R.; Skrzypczak, G. Effect of the time of herbicide application and the properties of the spray solution on the efficacy of weed control in maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation. Agriculture 2022, 12, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idziak, R.; Skrzypczak, W.; Waligóra, H.; Woźnica, Z. The effect of mesotrione applied with adjuvants on weed control efficacy and forage sorghum tolerance. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2013, 37, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idziak, R.; Woźnica, Z.; Sobczak, A.; Naskręt, B. Impact of soil-applied adjuvant and UAN on effectivity of thiencarbazone plus isoxaflutole applied in maize. Fragm. Agron. 2019, 36, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
- Hallman, C.A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heldbjerg, H.; Sunde, P.; Fox, A.D. Continuous population declines for specialist farmland birds 1987-2014 in Denmark indicates no halt in biodiversity loss in agricultural habitats. Bird Conserv. Int. 2018, 28, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wepprich, T.; Adrion, J.R.; Ries, L.; Wiedmann, J.; Haddad, N.M. Butterfly abundance declines over 20 years of systematic monitoring in Ohio, USA. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schäffer, A.; Filser, J.; Frische, T.; Gessner, M.; Köck, W.; Kratz, W.; Liess, M.; Nuppenau, E.A.; Roß-Nickoll, M.; Schäfer, R.; et al. The silent spring—on the need for sustainable plant protection. Leopoldina Discuss. 2018, 16, 61. Available online: www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopublication/2018_Diskussionspapier_Pflanzenschutzmittel_EN_02.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Holka, M.; Kowalska, J. Assessing the potential toxicity for freshwater ecosystem from chemical protection of maize in different soil tillage systems. Prog. Plant Prot. 2023, 63, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficient (K) values in REC Brody 2016–2018.
Figure 2.
Usage of total and active ingredients of herbicide (2, 3 … 13 treatments, see Table 4 or Table 5).
Figure 3.
Dependence of the herbicide treatments efficacy on density, plant height, weight of 1000 kernels, and grain yield of maize (scatter plot (dashed lines) with fitted regression line, blue circles – feature values).
Figure 3.
Dependence of the herbicide treatments efficacy on density, plant height, weight of 1000 kernels, and grain yield of maize (scatter plot (dashed lines) with fitted regression line, blue circles – feature values).
Table 1.
Description of field experiment conditions in REC Brody 2016–2018.
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Field experimental arrangement; replications | the randomized complete block design; 4 | ||
| Plot size, m | 2.8 × 10 m (28 m−2) | ||
| Previous crop | winter wheat | white lupine | winter triticale |
| Maize variety | PR39H32 | ||
| Planting/harvesting date | 26.04/26.09 | 06.05/18.10 | 25.04/24.09 |
| Plant density, no. m−2 | 8 | ||
| Row space, cm | 70 | ||
| Planting depth, cm | 4 | ||
| Type of soil | loamy sand | ||
| Organic matter content, % | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.4 |
| Soil pH | 5.5 | 6.6 | 6.3 |
Table 2.
Weather conditions during and 1 week after applications in maize, REC Brody.
| Years | Application Date | Relative Humidity (%) | Temperature (°C) | Sum of Rainfall FWAT (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air | Soil | Air FWAT | ||||
| 2016 | 0: 27/04 | 63 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 5.3–13.5 | 4.4 |
| A: 02/06 | 87 | 18.8 | 19.5 | 15.6–20.4 | 2.3 | |
| B: 19/05 | 76 | 13.9 | 12.3 | 13.4–22.0 | 3.4 | |
| C: 09/06 | 83 | 15.1 | 18.7 | 14.5–18.0 | 28.8 | |
| 2017 | 0: 08/05 | 90 | 3.7 | 7.1 | 3.9–16.4 | 22.0 |
| A: 25/05 | 67 | 17.5 | 13.4 | 13.7–23.2 | 14.0 | |
| B: 01/06 | 70 | 14.2 | 14.9 | 14.3–17.4 | 44.3 | |
| C: 22/06 | 55 | 20.9 | 19.4 | 19.9–21.4 | 20.4 | |
| 2018 | 0: 26/04 | 80 | 9.6 | 8.7 | 8.9–18.5 | 10.4 |
| A: 24/05 | 68 | 19.7 | 19.1 | 18.1–23.5 | 0.0 | |
| B: 14/05 | 70 | 18.6 | 17.5 | 14.2–17.7 | 11.2 | |
| C: 30/05 | 63 | 22.3 | 20.5 | 15.1–23.5 | 0.2 | |
0—preemergence application; A—maize BBCH 13–15; B—weeds BBCH 11–12; C—after next weeds emergence, weeds BBCH 11–12; FWAT—first week after treatment.
Table 3.
Share of weed species in maize at REC Brody.
| Latin Name | Abbreviation | Species Share (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | ||
| Galinsoga parviflora Cav. | GALPA | - | 1.0 | - |
| Euphorbia helioscopia L. | EUPHE | - | 1.0 | - |
| Veronica persica Poir. | VERHE | - | 1.0 | 3.3 |
| Fumaria officinalis L. | FUMAR | 1.0 | 1.0 | - |
| Poa annua L. | POAAN | 1.0 | - | - |
| Chenopodium album L. | CHEAL | 63.1 | 57.1 | 50.0 |
| Solanum nigrum L. | SOLNI | 1.0 | - | 3.3 |
| Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. | CAPBP | 1.0 | 2.0 | 6.7 |
| Echinochloa crus-gali (L.) P.Beauv. | ECHCG | 23.3 | 12.0 | 13.3 |
| Geranium pusillum L. | GERPU | 1.0 | 5.0 | 3.3 |
| Papaver rhoeas L. | PAPRH | - | 1.0 | - |
| Anthemis arvensis L. | ANTAR | - | 1.0 | 10.0 |
| Centaurea cyanus L. | CENCY | - | 4 | - |
| Viola arvensis Murray | VIOAR | - | - | 3.3 |
| Polygonum aviculare L. | POLAV | 1.0 | 1.0 | - |
| Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Sch. Bip. | TRIIN | - | - | 3.3 |
| Anchusa arvensis (L.) M.Bieb. | ANCAR | - | 1.0 | - |
| Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. | CIRAR | - | 2.0 | - |
| Galium aparine L. | GALAP | - | 4.0 | - |
| Agropyron repens (L.) P. Beauv. | AGRRE | 1.0 | 1.0 | - |
| Equisetum arvense L. | EQUAR | 1.9 | - | - |
| Fallotopia convonvulus (L.) A. Löve | FALCO | 2.9 | 4.0 | 3.3 |
| Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Her. | EROCI | 1.0 | - | - |
| Number of species in the community | 13 | 17 | 10 | |
Table 4.
The impact of rates, dates of application of herbicides, and adjuvants on CHEAL and ECHCG control, REC Brody.
Table 4.
The impact of rates, dates of application of herbicides, and adjuvants on CHEAL and ECHCG control, REC Brody.
| No. | Treatment | Rate | AT | CHEAL | ECHCG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | ||||
| 1. | Untreated check (g m–2) | - | - | 2217 | 3481 | 881 | 334 | 233 | 77 |
| WCE % | |||||||||
| 2. | T + I | FR | 0 | 91 ab | 84 bc | 100 a | 90 ab | 73 bc | 100 a |
| 3. | M + N + R | FR | A | 88 ab | 91 ab | 100 a | 83 b | 83 b | 94 ab |
| 4. | T + I | RR 1 | 0 | 79 b | 78 bc | 93 bc | 61 c | 60 c | 89 ab |
| 5. | M + N + R | RR 1 | A | 66 c | 72 c | 88 b | 75 bc | 75 bc | 83 b |
| 6. | T + I + AtSM | RR 1 | 0 | 88 ab | 80 bc | 100 a | 66 c | 79 b | 93 ab |
| 7. | T + I + Gr | RR 1 | 0 | 89 ab | 83 bc | 96 bc | 65 c | 73 bc | 91 ab |
| 8. | M + N + R + AtB | RR 1 | A | 89 ab | 100 a | 100 a | 89 ab | 100 a | 91 ab |
| 9. | M + N + R + Ac | RR 1 | A | 91 ab | 100 a | 100 a | 90 ab | 100 a | 90 ab |
| 10. | T + I + AtSM + RSM M + N + R + Ac + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 94 ab |
| 11. | T + I + Gr + RSM M + N + R + Ac + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 94 ab |
| 12. | T + I + AtSM + RSM M + N + R + AtB + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 99 a | 100 a |
| 13. | T + I + Gr + RSM M + N + R + AtB + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 99 a | 99 a | 100 a | 99 a | 98 a |
CHEAL—Chenopodium album; ECHCG—Echinochloa crus-galli; WCE—weed control efficacy; AT—application time; FR—full rate; RR 1—rate reduced by 40%; RR 2—rate reduced by 45%; T + I—thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole; M + N + R—mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron; AtSM—Atpolan Soil Maxx; Gr—Grounded; AtB—Atpolan Bio 80 EC; Ac—Actirob 842 EC; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; AT—application time; 0—preemergence application; A—maize BBCH 13–15; B—weeds BBCH 11–12; C—after next weeds emergence, weeds BBCH 11–12; values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly according to Tukey’s test at p = 0.05.
Table 5.
The impact of rates, dates of application of herbicides, and adjuvants on total weed control, and grain yield of maize, REC Brody.
Table 5.
The impact of rates, dates of application of herbicides, and adjuvants on total weed control, and grain yield of maize, REC Brody.
| No. | Treatment | Rate | AT | Total Weed Control | Grain YieldT ha–1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | ||||
| Untreated check | - | - | 2614 | 4405 | 1009 | 3.0 b | 4.0 e | 4.6 d | |
| 1. | (g m–2) | ||||||||
| WCE % | |||||||||
| 2. | T + I | FR | 0 | 89 abc | 74 c | 99 a | 11.8 a | 12.5 abc | 11.3 a |
| 3. | M + N + R | FR | A | 82 abc | 72 c | 99 a | 9.3 a | 10.1 cd | 10.1 ab |
| 4. | T + I | RR 1 | 0 | 67 c | 52 de | 97 ab | 11.0 a | 9.8 cd | 8.0 bc |
| 5. | M + N + R | RR 1 | A | 65 c | 48 e | 91 c | 9.4 a | 8.3 d | 6.7 cd |
| 6. | T + I + AtSM | RR 1 | 0 | 74 bc | 67 cd | 99 a | 11.8 a | 10.9 bcd | 11.3 a |
| 7. | T + I + Gr | RR 1 | 0 | 77 bc | 65 cde | 93 bc | 11.3 a | 10.8 bcd | 10.4 ab |
| 8. | M + N + R + AtB | RR 1 | A | 82 abc | 81 bc | 99 a | 10.8 a | 11.8 abc | 11.1 a |
| 9. | M + N + R + Ac | RR 1 | A | 90 ab | 82 abc | 99 a | 9.7 a | 11.6 abc | 11.0 ab |
| 10. | T + I + AtSM + RSM M + N + R + Ac + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 99 a | 98 a | 10.3 a | 13.0 ab | 11.1 a |
| 11. | T + I + Gr + RSM M + N + R + Ac + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 99 a | 99 a | 11.8 a | 13.0 ab | 10.3 ab |
| 12. | T + I + AtSM + RSM M + N + R + AtB + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 100 a | 100 a | 11.9 a | 13.2 ab | 10.5 ab |
| 13. | T + I + Gr + RSM M + N + R + AtB + RSM | RR 2 | B C | 100 a | 98 ab | 98 a | 11.1 a | 13.9 a | 11.2 a |
CHEAL—Chenopodium album; ECHCG—Echinochloa crus-galli; WCE—weed control efficacy; AT—application time; FR—full rate; RR 1—rate reduced by 40%; RR 2—rate reduced by 45%; T + I—thiencarbazone-methyl + isoxaflutole; M + N + R—mesotrione + nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron; AtSM—Atpolan Soil Maxx; Gr—Grounded; AtB—Atpolan Bio 80 EC; Ac—Actirob 842 EC; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; AT—application time; 0—preemergence application; A—maize BBCH 13–15; B—weeds BBCH 11–12; C—after next weeds emergence, weeds BBCH 11–12; values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly according to Tukey’s test at p = 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Idziak, R.; Sakowicz, T.; Waligóra, H.; Szulc, P.; Majchrzak, L.; Stachowiak, B.; Neumann, M. Influence of Application Timings, Rates, and Adjuvants on Tiencarbazone-Methyl Plus Isoxaflutole and Mesotrione with Nicosulfuron and Rimsulfuron on Weed Control and Yield of Maize. Agriculture 2024, 14, 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010073
AMA Style
Idziak R, Sakowicz T, Waligóra H, Szulc P, Majchrzak L, Stachowiak B, Neumann M. Influence of Application Timings, Rates, and Adjuvants on Tiencarbazone-Methyl Plus Isoxaflutole and Mesotrione with Nicosulfuron and Rimsulfuron on Weed Control and Yield of Maize. Agriculture. 2024; 14(1):73. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010073
Chicago/Turabian StyleIdziak, Robert, Tomasz Sakowicz, Hubert Waligóra, Piotr Szulc, Leszek Majchrzak, Barbara Stachowiak, and Małgorzata Neumann. 2024. "Influence of Application Timings, Rates, and Adjuvants on Tiencarbazone-Methyl Plus Isoxaflutole and Mesotrione with Nicosulfuron and Rimsulfuron on Weed Control and Yield of Maize" Agriculture 14, no. 1: 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010073
APA StyleIdziak, R., Sakowicz, T., Waligóra, H., Szulc, P., Majchrzak, L., Stachowiak, B., & Neumann, M. (2024). Influence of Application Timings, Rates, and Adjuvants on Tiencarbazone-Methyl Plus Isoxaflutole and Mesotrione with Nicosulfuron and Rimsulfuron on Weed Control and Yield of Maize. Agriculture, 14(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010073
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
