Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T19:14:42.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Performance and Soil Persistence of Chlorsulfuron when Used for Wheat Production in Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mercedes Royuela
Affiliation:
Investigaciones Agrarias. Apdo. 10. 15080 La Coruña, Spain
Alberto Muñoz-Rueda
Affiliation:
Investigaciones Agrarias. Apdo. 10. 15080 La Coruña, Spain
Carmen Gonzalez-Murua
Affiliation:
Dep. Biologia Vegetal y Ecologia, Univ. Pais Vasco (UPV) Apdo. 644. 48080 Bilbao, Spain

Abstract

Chlorsulfuron was preemergence applied in field trials at La Coruña, Spain, at rates from 5 to 30 g ai ha−1 (1987–88) and from 5 to 100 g ai ha−1 (1988–89) for weed control in winter and spring wheat. Excellent control of broadleaf weeds was obtained in both; however, narrowleaf control at the last evaluation (heading) was poor. Chlorsulfuron at 30 g ha−1 did not cause a residual problem in 1987–88, with only 0.24 μg kg−1 of dry soil recovered after both a winter and spring wheat cropping season. However, chlorsulfuron persistence at the same rate was very high in the dry year 1988–89, with 0.43 μg kg−1 and 0.53 μg kg−1 recovered in winter and spring wheat, respectively. ‘Cardeno’ spring wheat showed no phytotoxic symptom at any rate of chlorsulfuron from 5 to 100 g ha−1. Its yield and yield components (spikes m−2, grain number spike−1, grain weight) were greater with all chlorsulfuron rates, but not in ‘Fiel’ winter wheat for rates of 30 g ha−1 or higher.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Aamisepp, A. 1987. Investigations of sulfonyl-urea herbicides in cereals. Weeds and Weed Control 28th Swedish Weed Conf. Upssalla. 1:6171.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, R. L. and Barret, M. R. 1985. Residual phytotoxicity of chlorsulfuron in two soils. J. Environ. Qual. 14(1):111114.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R. and Elakkad, M. A. 1981. Herbicide evaluation for weed control in oats and wheat. Rosemount, MN-1981. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:8485.Google Scholar
4. Beyer, E. M. Jr., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1988. Sulfonylureas. Pages 117183 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Marcel-Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
5. Blair, A. M. and Martin, T. D. 1988. A review of the activity, fate and mode of action of sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 22(3):195219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bowran, D. G. and Blacklow, W. M. 1987. Sensitivities of spring wheat cultivars to chlorsulfuron measured as inhibitions of leaf elongation rates and there were genotype × environment interactions. Aust. J. Res. 38:253262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rotation crops to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 31:861865.Google Scholar
8. Davison, J. C., Krall, J. M., and Johnson, W. S. 1987. Response of selected range grass species to chlorsulfuron. Appl. Agric. Res. 2(5):337341.Google Scholar
9. Duffy, M. J., Hanafey, M. K., Linn, D. M., Russell, M. H., and Peter, C. J. 1987. Predicting sulfonylurea herbicide behaviour under field conditions. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds, 541547.Google Scholar
10. Eleftherohorinos, I. G., Murphy, K. J., and Drennan, D. H. 1984. The effects of chlorsulfuron on growth and seed viability of cereal weeds, with reference to greek cereal systems. Proc. EWRS 3rd Symp. Weed Problems in the Mediterranean Area. 175183.Google Scholar
11. Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 1987. Phytotoxicity and persistence of chlorsulfuron as applied by activated charcoal. Weed Res. 27:443452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Groves, K. E. and Foster, R. K. 1985. A corn (Zea mays L.) bioassay technique for measuring chlorsulfuron levels in three Saskatchewan soils. Weed Sci. 33:825828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Hageman, L. H. and Behrens, R. 1981. Response of small-grain cultivars to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 29:414420.Google Scholar
14. Hageman, L. H. and Behrens, R. 1984. Basis for response differences of two broadleaf weeds to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 32:162167.Google Scholar
15. Khodayary, K., Frans, R. E., and Akkari, K. H. 1985. Evaluation of chlorsulfuron in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and in a wheat-soyabean (Glycine max) double-cropping system. Weed Sci. 33:746749.Google Scholar
16. Lemerle, D., Leys, A. R., Hinkley, R. B., and Fisher, J. A. 1985. Tolerance of wheat cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 25:922926.Google Scholar
17. Nicholls, P. H., Evans, A. A., and Walker, A. 1987. The behaviour of chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron in soils in relation to incidents of injury to sugarbeet. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds, 549556.Google Scholar
18. Palm, H. L., Riggleman, J. D., and Allison, D. A. 1980. Worldwide review of the new cereal herbicide DPX 4189. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds, 16.Google Scholar
19. Peterson, A. M. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Response of rotational crops to soil residues of chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 34:131135.Google Scholar
20. Royuela, M., Bueno, J., Muñoz-Rueda, A., and Gonzalez-Murua, C. 1990. Efficiency of herbicides on weed control in winter crops at northwestern Spain. Agric. Medit. 120:1318.Google Scholar
21. Sweetser, P. B., Schow, G. S., and Hutchinson, J. M. 1982. Metabolism of chlorsulfuron by plants: biological basis for selectivity of a new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:1823.Google Scholar
22. Walker, A. and Brown, P. A. 1982. Crop responses to low doses of pendimethalin, napropamide, metazachlor and chlorsulfuron in the soil. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds, 141147.Google Scholar
23. Wicks, G. A., Nordquist, P. T., and Schmidt, J. W. 1987. Response of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:259262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar