1 Ocak 2016 Dergi makalesi Açık Erişim

Arslan, Zubeyde Filiz; Williams, Martin M., II; Becker, Roger; Fritz, Vincent A.; Peachey, R. Ed; Rabaey, Tom L.

DataCite XML

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<resource xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4" xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.1/metadata.xsd">
  <identifier identifierType="URL">https://aperta.ulakbim.gov.tr/record/57169</identifier>
  <creators>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Arslan, Zubeyde Filiz</creatorName>
      <givenName>Zubeyde Filiz</givenName>
      <familyName>Arslan</familyName>
    </creator>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Williams, Martin M., II</creatorName>
      <affiliation>USDA ARS, Global Change &amp; Photosynth Res, 1102 S Goodwin Ave, Urbana, IL 61801 USA</affiliation>
    </creator>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Becker, Roger</creatorName>
      <givenName>Roger</givenName>
      <familyName>Becker</familyName>
      <affiliation>Univ Minnesota, Dept Agron &amp; Plant Genet, 411 Borlaug Hall,1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108 USA</affiliation>
    </creator>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Fritz, Vincent A.</creatorName>
      <givenName>Vincent A.</givenName>
      <familyName>Fritz</familyName>
      <affiliation>Univ Minnesota, Southern Res &amp; Outreach Ctr, Dept Hort Sci, 35838 120th St, Waseca, MN 56093 USA</affiliation>
    </creator>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Peachey, R. Ed</creatorName>
      <givenName>R. Ed</givenName>
      <familyName>Peachey</familyName>
      <affiliation>Oregon State Univ, Dept Hort, 4017 Ag &amp; Life Sci Bldg, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA</affiliation>
    </creator>
    <creator>
      <creatorName>Rabaey, Tom L.</creatorName>
      <givenName>Tom L.</givenName>
      <familyName>Rabaey</familyName>
      <affiliation>Gen Mills Agr Res, 1201 N 4th St, Le Sueur, MN 56058 USA</affiliation>
    </creator>
  </creators>
  <titles>
    <title>Alternatives To Atrazine For Weed Management In Processing Sweet Corn</title>
  </titles>
  <publisher>Aperta</publisher>
  <publicationYear>2016</publicationYear>
  <dates>
    <date dateType="Issued">2016-01-01</date>
  </dates>
  <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="Text">Journal article</resourceType>
  <alternateIdentifiers>
    <alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="url">https://aperta.ulakbim.gov.tr/record/57169</alternateIdentifier>
  </alternateIdentifiers>
  <relatedIdentifiers>
    <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsIdenticalTo">10.1614/WS-D-16-00001.1</relatedIdentifier>
  </relatedIdentifiers>
  <rightsList>
    <rights rightsURI="http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/cc-by">Creative Commons Attribution</rights>
    <rights rightsURI="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">Open Access</rights>
  </rightsList>
  <descriptions>
    <description descriptionType="Abstract">Atrazine has been the most widely used herbicide in North American processing sweet corn for decades; however, increased restrictions in recent years have reduced or eliminated atrazine use in certain production areas. The objective of this study was to identify the best stakeholder-derived weed management alternatives to atrazine in processing sweet corn. In field trials throughout the major production areas of processing sweet corn, including three states over 4 yr, 12 atrazine-free weed management treatments were compared to three standard atrazine-containing treatments and a weed-free check. Treatments varied with respect to herbicide mode of action, herbicide application timing, and interrow cultivation. All treatments included a PRE application of dimethenamid. No single weed species occurred across all sites; however, weeds observed in two or more sites included common lambsquarters, giant ragweed, morningglory species, velvetleaf, and wild-proso millet. Standard treatments containing both atrazine and mesotrione POST provided the most efficacious weed control among treatments and resulted in crop yields comparable to the weed-free check, thus demonstrating the value of atrazine in sweet corn production systems. Timely interrow cultivation in atrazine-free treatments did not consistently improve weed control. Only two atrazine-free treatments consistently resulted in weed control and crop yield comparable to standard treatments with atrazine POST: treatments with tembotrione POST either with or without interrow cultivation. Additional atrazine-free treatments with topramezone applied POST worked well in Oregon where small-seeded weed species were prevalent. This work demonstrates that certain atrazine-free weed management systems, based on input from the sweet corn growers and processors who would adopt this technology, are comparable in performance to standard atrazine-containing weed management systems.</description>
  </descriptions>
</resource>