Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:35:37.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of BAS 145 138, CGA 154 281, and Naphthalic Anhydride Seed Treatments on Sweet Corn (Zea mays) Tolerance to Nicosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Darren K. Robinson
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
James D. Burton
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609

Abstract

BAS 145 138, CGA 154 281, and 1,8 naphthalic anhydride were evaluated as seed treatments to safen 'Silver Xtra Sweet,’ ‘How Sweet It Is,’ ‘Zenith,’ and 'Sweetie 76’ sweet corn against nicosulfuron injury. Nicosulfuron POST injured sweet corn by causing slight leaf chlorosis and leaf base widening in Sweetie 76 and severe plant injury and total yield loss in Silver Xtra Sweet. Naphthalic anhydride or CGA 154 281 provided limited or no safening activity, respectively, and resulted in plant height reduction when applied alone. BAS 145 138 reduced nicosulfuron injury to Silver Xtra Sweet and prevented visible injury from nicosulfuron in How Sweet It Is, Zenith, and Sweetie 76.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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

1. American Phytopathological Society. 1973. Maize dwarf mosaic. Page 61 in Shurtleff, M. C., ed. Compendium of corn diseases. Am. Phytopathol. Soc., St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Vegetable Crops. Pages 362382 in Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. J., eds. Weed Science Principles and Practices, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
3. Barrett, M. 1989. Protection of grass crops from sulfonylurea and imidazolinone toxicity. Page 205 in Hatzios, K. K. and Hoagland, R. E., eds. Crop Safeners for Herbicides: Development, Uses and Mechanism of Action. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1971. Protecting corn from herbicide injury by seed treatment. Weed Sci. 19:565568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Burton, J. D., Maness, E. M., Monks, D. W., and Robinson, D. K. 1994. Sulfonylurea selectivity and safener activity in ‘Landmark’ and ‘Merit’ sweet corn. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 48:163172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Campbell, T. A. 1979. Diallel analysis of early competition between sweet corn and four weed species. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 104(6):893894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Dean, J. V., Cronwald, J. W., and Eberlein, C. V. 1990. Induction of glutathiones-transferase isozymes in sorghum by herbicide antidotes. Plant Physiol. 92:467473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Devlin, R. M. and Zbeic, I. I. 1990. Effect of BAS 145 138 as an antidote for sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:337340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Harper, J. L. 1977. The effects of neighbors. Pages 151347 in Harper, J. L. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press LTD, London.Google Scholar
10. Hatzios, K. K. 1984. Interactions between selected herbicides and protectants on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:5158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hatzios, K. K. and Hoagland, R. E. 1986. Physiological interactions between the herbicide EPTC and selected analogues of the antidote naphthalic anhydride on two hybrids of maize. Pestic. Sci. 17:2532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Lorenz, O. A. and Maynard, D. N. 1988. Field Planting. Pages 6796 in Lorenz, O. A. and Maynard, D. N., eds. Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
13. Monks, D. W. and Johnson, K. E. 1989. Sweet corn response to Accent (DPX-V9360) and Beacon (CGA 136 872). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:155.Google Scholar
14. Monks, D. W., Mullins, C. A., and Johnson, K. E. 1992. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:280283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1988. DPX-V9360 for weed control infield and sweet corn. Proc. North Centr. Weed Control Conf. 43:21.Google Scholar
16. Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effect of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn (Zea mays) under three environments. Weed Technol. 5:130136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Pierce, L. C. 1987. Sweet corn. Pages 383398 in Pierce, L. C., ed. Vegetables, Characteristics, Production and Marketing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Toronto.Google Scholar
18. Schultheis, J. R., Monks, D. W., Adams, D. E., Hunt, R. I., and Mills, R. J. 1990. Pages 2134 in Sweet corn research and extension report. Dep. of Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh. Hortic. Research Series No. 89.Google Scholar
19. Short, G. E. and Lacy, M. L. 1976. Carbohydrate exudation from pea seeds: Effect of cultivar, seed age, seed color, and temperature, and relation to fungal rots. Phytopathology 66:182187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1990. Tolerance variability among sweet corn cultivars to DPX-V9360. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:170.Google Scholar
21. Styler, R. C. and Cantliffe, D. J. 1983. Changes in seed structure and composition during development and their effects on leakage in two endosperm-mutants of sweet corn. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 108(5):721728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. USDA. 1981. United States Standards for Grades of Green Corn. Sources: 46FR63203. 4 pp.Google Scholar