Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:05:22.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Tolerance to HPPD-Inhibiting Herbicides in Sweet Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph D. Bollman ,
Chris M. Boerboom ,
Roger L. Becker  and
Vince A. Fritz
Joseph D. Bollman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Chris M. Boerboom*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Roger L. Becker
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Vince A. Fritz
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of POST herbicides has been limited in sweet corn because of the narrow spectrum of weed control or potential crop injury. Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone applied POST in sweet corn at three locations. Efficacy of mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone applied alone or mixed with atrazine was compared to other labeled POST herbicides following PRE S-metolachlor. Giant foxtail control was greater with tembotrione or topramezone than mesotrione alone or mixed with atrazine. Common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, and common ragweed were controlled 98% or greater with the HPPD-inhibiting herbicides when mixed with atrazine. Tolerance of six sweet corn hybrids was determined in the field when treated with 1× and 2× rates of these herbicides mixed with atrazine. Tolerance of six sweet corn hybrids to these herbicides was determined in the greenhouse when treated with 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 times the labeled rate. Differential hybrid tolerance to each herbicide was observed in both the field and greenhouse evaluations. Tembotrione killed ‘Merit’ in both evaluations. Excluding Merit, hybrids generally had good tolerance to tembotrione and topramezone in the field, but had differential tolerance to mesotrione. With the exception of Merit, hybrids generally had greater tolerance to tembotrione than topramezone and less tolerance to mesotrione in the greenhouse. These HPPD-inhibiting herbicides provide POST weed control, but the potential for sweet corn injury varies among the herbicides and hybrids and warrants further characterization.

Keywords

AtrazinemesotrioneS-metolachlortembotrionetopramezonecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.Injurysensitivityweed controlyield
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 666 - 674
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. A., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 2006. Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol 20:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2003. Callisto™ herbicide label. SCP 1131A-L1G. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005. USDA–National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2005. Agricultural Chemical Usage. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: February 17, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006. Impact™ herbicide label. 11926-3. Los Angeles, CA: AMVAC.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007a. Laudis™ herbicide label. 11-29-07. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007b. Processor Sweet Corn. Boise, ID: Syngenta Seeds, Inc. www.rogersadvantage.com/products/corn_proc.asp. Accessed: January 28, 2008.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M., Bundy, L. G., Bussan, A. J., Colquhoun, J. B., Cullen, E. M., Delahaut, K. A., Groves, R. L., Laboski, C. A. M., Mahr, D. L., and Stevenson, W. R. 2007. Commercial Vegetable Production in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Bulletin A3422. Pages 190.Google Scholar
Grossmann, 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
Hinz, J., Wollam, J., and Allen, J. 2005. Weed control with AE 0172747 in corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 60:90.Google Scholar
Hora, J., Wollam, J., and Allen, J. 2005. Evaluation of insecticide interaction with AE 0172747. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 60:92.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamore, D., Simkins, G., Watteyne, K., and Allen, J. 2006. Weed control programs with tembotrione in corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 61:119.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., Bartlett, D. W., Fraser, T. E. M., Hawkes, T. R., Holt, D. C., Townson, J. K., and Wichert, R. A. 2001. Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest Manag. Sci 57:120–128.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 6:91–96.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Zandstra, J., and Sikkema, P. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol 16:421–425.Google Scholar
Pataky, J. K., Meyer, M. D., Bollman, J. D., Boerboom, C. M., and Williams, M. M. II. 2008. Genetic basis for varied levels of injury to sweet corn hybrids from three cytochrome P450-metabolized herbicides. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 133:438–447.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., Schultheis, J. R., and Worsham, A. D. 1993. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to application timing of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 7:840–843.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Simkins, G., Lamore, D., Miller, D., and Allen, J. 2006. Effect of atrazine and adjuvants on weed control with tembotrione in corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 61:120.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Sikkema, P. H., Zandstra, J., O'Sullivan, J., and Robinson, D. E. 2007. Response of eight sweet corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids to topramezone. HortScience 42:110–112.Google Scholar
Waddington, M. A. and Young, B. G. 2006. Interactions of herbicides and adjuvants with AE 0172747 on postemergence grass control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 61:115.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci 54:928–933.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. and Masiunas, J. B. 2006. Functional relationships between giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference and sweet corn yield and ear traits. Weed Sci 54:948–953.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. and Ries, J. L. 2006. Comparing mesotrione, tembotrione, and topramezone. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 61:114.Google Scholar