Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:10:13.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption and activity of foramsulfuron in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) with various adjuvants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey A. Bunting ,
Christy L. Sprague  and
Dean E. Riechers
Jeffrey A. Bunting
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Dean E. Riechers
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and laboratory studies were conducted to examine the activity and foliar absorption of foramsulfuron in giant foxtail and woolly cupgrass with various adjuvants. Adjuvant selection was important for giant foxtail control. Foramsulfuron provided 90% or greater giant foxtail control with the addition of methylated seed oil (MSO) or MSO plus 28% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN). When a crop oil concentrate (COC) or a nonionic surfactant (NIS) was added to foramsulfuron, giant foxtail control was only 20%. However, when 28% UAN was added to COC or NIS, control was increased to 90 and 85%, respectively. Foramsulfuron absorption and control were closely related in giant foxtail. Foliar absorption of 14C-foramsulfuron in giant foxtail ranged between 35 and 90% 24 h after treatment (HAT) depending on adjuvant selection. The rate of absorption was greatest when MSO plus 28% UAN was added to foramsulfuron and absorption was maximized 4 HAT. Foramsulfuron absorption in woolly cupgrass reached its maximum levels 2 HAT with all adjuvant combinations. Although the rate of foramsulfuron absorption was quicker in woolly cupgrass, absorption trends by adjuvants were similar to those in giant foxtail. Maximum absorption of 14C-foramsulfuron in woolly cupgrass was 84% with the addition of MSO plus 28% UAN. However, even with high levels of absorption, woolly cupgrass control with foramsulfuron was poor and may be related to rapid metabolism to nonphytotoxic compounds.

Keywords

Foramsulfurongiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAwoolly cupgrass, Eriochloa villosa L. ERBVIAdjuvantsnonionic surfactantcrop oil concentratemethylated seed oil
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 513 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2003. Option Herbicide Specimen Label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropSciences.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1991. Effects of methylammonium and urea ammonium nitrate uptake of thifensulfuron in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 39:333–338.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1993. Absorption and activity of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) as affected by adjuvants. Weed Sci 41:218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1997. Physiological basis for nicosulfuron and primisulfuron selectivity in five plant species. Weed Sci 45:22–30.Google Scholar
Fielding, R. J. and Stoller, E. W. 1990. Effects of additives on efficacy, uptake, and translocation of chlorimuron ethyl ester. Weed Technol 4:264–271.Google Scholar
Green, J. M., Brown, P. A., Berengut, D., and King, M. J. 1992. Nonionic surfactant property effects on thifensulfuron methyl performance. Pages 525–532 in Foy, C. L. ed. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol 7:633–640.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. 1992. Effects of various adjuvants on sethoxydim activity. Weed Technol 6:865–870.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1992. Influence of adjuvants on the efficacy, absorption, and spray retention of primisulfuron. Weed Technol 6:592–598.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1996. Nicosulfuron and primisulfuron selectivity in corn (Zea mays) and two annual grass weeds. Weed Sci 44:219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1996. Adjuvants and growth stage affect purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control with chlorimuron and imazethapyr. Weed Technol 10:359–362.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. R., Krausz, R. F., Khan, M., and Mathews, J. L. 1995. The effect of nicosulfuron rate, adjuvant, and weed size on annual weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 8:696–702.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Horsley, R. D., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Relationship between surfactant characterisitics and the phytotoxicity of CGA-136872. Pages 258–270 in Bode, L. E. and Chasin, D. G. eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A. and Matysiak, R. 1990. Oils and emulsifiers affect imazethapyr phytotoxicity. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 45:17.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Relating Eriochloa villosa emergence to interference in Zea mays . Weed Sci 47:571–577.Google Scholar
Miller, P. A., Westra, P., and Nissen, S. J. 1999. The influence of surfactant and nitrogen on foliar absorption of MON 37500. Weed Sci 47:270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Praczyk, T., and Matysiak, R. 1995. Surfactants and oil adjuvants with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 9:689–695.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K., Hartzler, R. G., and Lux, J. 1993. Woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) control in corn (Zea mays) with chloroacetamide herbicides. Weed Technol 7:925–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Annual grass control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron combined with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 11:171–175.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L., Harvey, R. G., and Albright, J. W. 1996. Herbicide timing and combination strategies for woolly cupgrass control in corn. J. Prod. Agric 9:381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of CGA 362622 in cotton and two weeds. Weed Sci 51:157–162.Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, F. C., Rowe, L., Penner, D., Petroff, L., and Burow, R. 1990. Increasing postemergence herbicide efficacy and rainfastness with silicone adjuvants. Weed Technol 4:576–580.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide, Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Schuh, J. F. and Harvey, R. G. 1989. Woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) control in corn (Zea mays L.) with pendimethalin/triazine combinations and cultivation. Weed Sci 37:405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L. and Hager, A. G. 2003. Weeds to watch for in 2003. www.ag.uiuc.edu/cespubs/pest/articles.Google Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., and Harvey, R. G. et al. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci 45:138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Effect of adjuvants on weed control and soybean (Glycine max) tolerance with AC 263,222. Weed Technol 5:817–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar