Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:09:30.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two-Way Performance Interactions among ρ-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate Dioxygenase- and Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Allan C. Kaastra ,
Clarence J. Swanton ,
François J. Tardif  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Allan C. Kaastra
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
François J. Tardif
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario N0P 2C0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is little information available on performance interactions for tank mixtures of topramezone and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides. Controlled-environment and field experiments were conducted in 2006 and 2007 to determine the interactions of topramezone when tank-mixed with ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Controlled-environment experiments were conducted on four annual grass species treated at the five- to six-leaf stage. Dose–response curves for large crabgrass, barnyardgrass, yellow foxtail, and green foxtail were generated for nicosulfuron or foramsulfuron alone and in combination with label rates of topramezone or mesotrione (with or without atrazine). Eight field experiments were conducted using registered rates of two ρ-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting and three ALS-inhibiting herbicides alone and in combination. All herbicide treatments in the field were applied at the two- to three-leaf and five- to six-leaf stages of barnyardgrass, green foxtail, giant green foxtail, and witchgrass. In both the controlled environment and field experiments, antagonistic interactions were found to be species specific. In the controlled environment, nicosulfuron antagonized topramezone for the control of large crabgrass and barnyardgrass, but did not influence control of yellow or green foxtail. This antagonism was overcome with the addition of atrazine or an increased dose of nicosulfuron. Antagonism was not observed with tank mixtures of topramezone and foramsulfuron on the species tested under controlled-environment or field conditions. In the field, antagonism was not influenced by growth stage of the annual grasses. Antagonistic interactions were observed when topramezone was tank-mixed with nicosulfuron or nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron for the control of barnyardgrass and, to a lesser extent, giant green foxtail. Similar tank mixtures did not reduce control of green foxtail or witchgrass. HPPD-inhibiting herbicides are known to antagonize the activity of ALS-inhibiting herbicides for the control of annual grasses. This is the first report in the literature that an ALS-inhibiting herbicide can antagonize an HPPD-inhibiting herbicide. Thus, the chemistries of these herbicides exhibit a two-way antagonistic interaction.

Keywords

Atrazineforamsulfuronmesotrionenicosulfuronrimsulfurontopramezonebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGgiant green foxtail, Setaria viridis var. major (Gaudin) Pospichel. SETVMgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. SETLUwitchgrass, Panicum capillare L. PANCA.Antagonismdose–responsetank mixturesannual grasstopramezonemesotrione
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 841 - 851
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

Abendroth, J., Martin, A., and Roeth, F. 2006. Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol. 20:267–274.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007a. Callisto® herbicide product label. Syngenta Crop Protection Canada Inc. http://www.syngenta.ca. Accessed: December 13, 2007.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007b. Impact™ herbicide product label. BASF Canada. http://www.basf.com/basf-canada/index_e.shtm. Accessed: December 13, 2007.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Mesotrione alone and in mixtures with glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 17:680–685.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H., Daniel, J. T., and Miller, B. R. 1999. ZA1296: a versatile postemergence broadleaf herbicide for corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 39:65–66.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. B., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 14:495–501.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds. 15:20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, J. E., Monaco, T. A., and Evans, J. O. 2004. Photosynthetic and growth response of Zea mays L. and four weed species following post-emergence treatments with mesotrione and atrazine. Pest Manag. Sci. 60:1079–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damalas, C. A. and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 2001. Dicamba and atrazine antagonism on sulfonylurea herbicides used for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, J. L., Cornelius, P. L., and Barrett, M. 1988. Analyzing herbicide interactions: a statistical treatment of Colby's method. Weed Technol. 2:304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K. and Ehrhardt, T. 2007. On the mechanism of action and selectivity of the corn herbicide topramezone: a new inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Pest Manag. Sci. 63:429–439.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
Hart, S. E. and Penner, D. 1993. Atrazine reduces primisulfuron transport to meristems of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 41:28–33.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E. and Wax, L. M. 1996. Dicamba antagonizes grass weed control with imazethapyr by reduced foliar absorption. Weed Technol. 10:828–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C., Young, B. G., and Matthews, J. L. 2002. Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol. 16:414–420.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., and Holman, C. S. 1999. Mesotrione programs. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 56:225–226.Google Scholar
Kaastra, A. C. 2008. Performance interactions among HPPD-inhibiting and ALS-inhibiting herbicides for the control of annual grasses. M.Sc. dissertation. Guelph, Ontario, Canada University of Guelph. 20–30.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Streibig, J. C., and Ritz, C. 2007. Utilizing R software package for dose response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol. 21:840–848.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. 1989. Experiences with reduced herbicide doses in Denmark and the development of the concept of factor-adjusted doses. Pages 545–554. in. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Surrey, UK British Crop Protection Council. Pages.Google Scholar
Lund, R. E. 1975. Tables for an approximate test for outliers in linear models. Technometrics. 17:473–476.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. 1989. Antagonism of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with fenoxaprop, haloxyfop, and sethoxydim by 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 3:86–89.Google Scholar
Myers, P. F. and Coble, H. D. 1992. Antagonism of graminicide activity on annual grass species by imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6:333–338.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2006 to 2007. Guide to Weed Control, Publication 75. Toronto, Ontario, Canada Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 396 p.Google Scholar
Porter, R. M., Vaculin, P. D., Orr, J. E., Immaraju, J. A., and O'Neal, W. B. 2005. Topramezone: a new active for postemergence weed control in corn. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 60:93.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. 2007. Weed science education and research: the agronomy learning farm and mesotrione and sulfonylurea herbicide interactions. Ph.D. dissertation. Manhattan, KS Kansas State University. 52–83.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, P., Richards, C., Buren, L., and Glasgow, L. 2002. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 58:981–984.Google Scholar
Whaley, C. M., Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2006. Comparison of mesotrione combinations with standard weed control programs in corn. Weed Technol. 20:605–611.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Townson, J. K., Bartlett, D. W., and Foxon, G. A. 1999. Technical review of mesotrione, a new maize herbicide. Pages 105–110. in. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Surrey, UK British Crop Protection Council. Pages.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Hamill, A. S., and Weaver, S. E. 1995. Antagonism and synergism between herbicides: trends from previous studies. Weed Technol. 9:86–90.Google Scholar