Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:22:45.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Hard Red Spring Wheat to CGA-82725

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Richard Mohan ,
Elhassanein Elslirbini Hassanein ,
Rodney G. Lym  and
Stephen D. Miller
Richard Mohan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Elhassanein Elslirbini Hassanein
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Rodney G. Lym
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of ‘Era’ (tolerant) and ‘Coteau’ (susceptible) hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to CGA-82725 2-propynyl ester of {2-[4- [(3,5-dichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] phenoxy] propanoic acid} was determined in field and greenhouse evaluations. Era wheat was most susceptible to CGA-82725 applied at early jointing through the boot stage. Coteau wheat was most susceptible at die two-leaf stage and between early jointing through spike emergence. Coteau was injured more than Era wheat as the CGA-82725 rate was increased from 0.14 to 0.28 kg ai/ha. Wheat grain yield reductions were greatest when CGA-82725 was applied at the early jointing through boot stage for both cultivars and averaged 73% of the control. Absorption and translocation of 14C-CGA-82725 were similar and increased over time regardless of cultivar. Most of the absorbed 14C remained in the treated leaf in both cultivars.

Keywords

Grass herbicideuptaketranslocationEraCoteau
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , March 1988 , pp. 239 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Anderson, W. P. 1983. Formulations and surfactants. Page 307–340 in Weed Sci.: Principles 2nd ed. West Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
2. Behrens, R. and Elakkad, M. A. 1983. Postemergence treatments for weed control in oats and wheat, Rosemont, MN. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:97–99.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R., Elakkad, M. A., and Wiersma, J. V. 1983. Herbicide treatments for wild oat control in wheat and barley, Crookston, MN. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:88–89.Google Scholar
4. Boldt, P. F. and Putnam., A. R. 1980. Selectivity mechanisms for foliar application of diclofop-methyl. Retention, absorption, translocation and volatility. Weed Sci. 28:474–477.Google Scholar
5. Boldt, P. F. and Putnam, A. R. 1981. Selectivity mechanisms for foliar application of diclofop-methyl. II. Metabolism. Weed Sci. 29:237–241.Google Scholar
6. Bovey, R. W., Hein, H. Jr., Meyer, R. E., and Bouse, L. F. 1987. Influence of adjuvants on the deposition, absorption, and translocation of clopyralid in honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Weed Sci. 35:253–258.Google Scholar
7. Brezeanu, A. G., Davis, D. G., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1976. Ultrastructural effects and translocation of methyl-2 (2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy)propanoate in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and wild oat (Avena fatua). Can. J. Bot. 54:2038–2048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Furmidge, C.G.L. 1962. Physico-chemical studies on agricultural sprays. IV. The retention of spray liquids on leaf surfaces. J. Sci. Food Agric. 13:127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gillespie, G. R., Stahlberg, L. A., and Chamberlain, E. W. 1983. Wild oat and foxtail control in wheat with CGA-82725. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:79–80.Google Scholar
10. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Page 1–63 in Reviews of Weed Sci. Vol. 1. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
11. Hendley, P., Dicks, J. W., Monaco, T. J., Slyfield, S. M., Tummon, O. J., and Barrett, J. C. 1985. Translocation and metabolism of pyridinyloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides in rhizomatous quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 33:11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hill, B. D., Stobbe, E. H., and Jones, B. L. 1978. Hydrolysis of the herbicide benzoylprop-ethyl by wild oat esterase. Weed Res. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
13. Hull, H. M., Davis, D. G., and Stolzenberg, G. E. 1982. Action of adjuvants on plant surfaces. Page 26–27 in Adjuvants for Herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
14. Kells, J. K., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci. 32:143–149.Google Scholar
15. Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1982. Grass weed control in wheat with CGA-82725. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 37:24–26.Google Scholar
16. Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1982. Hard red spring wheat response to herbicides. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:126–127.Google Scholar
17. Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1982. Postemergence CGA-82725 in wheat. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:128.Google Scholar
18. Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1983. Hard red spring and durum wheat response to CGA-82725 and AC-222,293. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:93.Google Scholar
19. Shimabukuro, R. H., Walsh, W. C., and Hoerauf, R. A. 1979. Metabolism and selectivity of diclofop-methyl in wild oat and wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:615–623.Google Scholar
20. Stahlman, P. W. 1982. Postemergence CGA-82725 plus oil in winter wheat. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:116.Google Scholar
21. Todd, B. G. and Stobbe, E. H. 1977. Selectivity of dichlofopmethyl among wheat, barley, wild oat (Avena fatua) and green foxtail (Setaria fatua). Weed Sci. 25:382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar