No‐Tillage Maize Production in Chemically Suppressed Grass Sod¹

Abstract

For no‐tillage maize (Zea mays L.) planted in sod, production usually involves the use of a contact herbicide to chemically mow or kill the grass sod. Such a procedure often necessitates costly forage reestablishment and subjects the land to water and wind erosion hazards during noncrop periods. Substantial acreage of rolling, erosive land presently is being row cropped. Field studies on different soil types were designed to investigate: a) the feasibility of chemically suppressing the grass sod for maize production; b) maintaining a sod cover for erosion control; c) providing sufficient forage for fall and winter animal grazing. More than 20 treatments involving growth retardants and sublethal herbicide rates were evaluated for maize production in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) sods at two southern Illinois locations from 1975 to 1977. The growth retardants which resulted in the best combination of maize yield and grass production in these experiments were maleic hydrazide (1,2‐dihydro‐3,6‐pyridazinedione), fluridamid (N‐[3‐[1,1,1‐trifluoro methylsulfonyl) amino]‐4 methylphenyl]acetamide), and mefluidide (N‐[2,4‐dimethyl‐5[[(trifluoromethyl) sulfonyl]amino]phenyl] acetamide. The herbicides which most nearly met experimental objectives were glyphosate (N‐(phosphonomethyl)glycine), glyphosate plus atrazine (2‐chloro‐4‐(ethylamino)‐6‐(isopropylamino)‐s‐triazine), metolachlor (2‐chloro‐N‐(2‐ethyl‐6‐methylphenyl)‐N‐(2‐methoxy‐l‐methylethyl) acetamide), metolachlor plus atrazine, and dalapon (2,2‐dichloropropionic acid). In most instances, it was necessary to apply a band of paraquat (1,1′‐dimethyl‐4,4′‐bipyridiniumion) over each row for acceptable maize yield. In these experiments, it was possible to obtain good maize yields while maintaining at least 50% of the grass sod with little or no erosion observed. This method offers the potential for a combination of maize production and grazing on erosive land.

Living Mulch for Sustainable Maize Stover Biomass Harvest

“…The maize grain yield reduction for LM treatment maize is similar to other reports in that excessive competition from LM resulted in lower grain yield than conventional maize (Adams et al, 1970;Carreker et al, 1972;Robertson et al, 1976;Flynn et al, 2013). Grasses in our study had rapid post-suppression recovery and expanded into the strip-tilled maize rows, exceeding the 60% cover or effective chemical suppression that other reports have found integral to support maize yield in LM systems (Elkins et al, 1979(Elkins et al, , 1983. Previous reports attribute observed yield suppression of maize in LM to early-season stresses (Flynn et al, 2013;Bartel et al, 2017).…”

“…Similar maize grain yield observed under a variety of tillage methods was attributed to LM species compatibility (Beale and Langdale, 1964). Effective chemical suppression in conjunction with cool-season species dormancy facilitates an advantage for maize in LM in the competition for resources (Elkins et al, 1979). The inadequately suppressed LM in our experiment likely functioned as an early-season weed, which can initiate the shade avoidance responses in maize during the critical period for weed control regardless of resources abundance (Page et al, 2009).…”

“…Living mulch that effectively minimizes weed competition will often compete with the grain crop, requiring suppression and management of the LM itself (Teasdale, 1996). Another study reported that effective chemical suppression for ~8 wk was integral to reduce competition between the LM and maize (Elkins et al, 1979). ), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), or smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.)…”

No-till alfalfa stand termination strategies: Alfalfa control and wheat and barley production

“…Difficulty in forage stand termination is a major reason why many producers keep alfalfa stands longer than required for maximum rotational benefits (Entz et al 1995). Adams et al (1970), Carreker et al (1972), Elkins et al (1979), and Smith et al (1992a) all stressed a need for no-till cropping systems to replace conventional methods of removing perennial sod. There is increasing interest among producers in the Canadian Prairies and northern US Great Plains in using herbicides instead of traditional tillage methods to suppress alfalfa stands (Entz et al 1995;Anderson and Halvorson 1996).…”

Managing white clover living mulch for sweet corn production with partial rototilling

“…For example, without suppression, a white clover living mulch reduced the yield of sweet corn (Nicholson and Wien, 1983;Vrabel, 1981Vrabel, , 1983Peters, 1986) and cabbage (Nicholson and Wien, 1983;Wyland, 1986). On the other hand, the use of intercropped forages in corn production has generally been successful when the sods were chemically suppressed (Adams et al, 1970;Bennett et al, 1976;Box et al, 1980;Elkins et al, 1979;Hartwig, 1974). In New York, Vrabel (1981,1983) showed that sweet corn intercropped with white clover suppressed by atrazine (6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(lmethylethyl)-l,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine) yielded as well or better than clean cultivated corn, depending on the year.…”