Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:27:04.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acetolactate Synthase-Resistant and -Susceptible Corn (Zea mays) Response to Imazethapyr, Imazaquin, Chlorimuron, and CGA-152005

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ronald F. Krausz ,
George Kapusta  and
Joseph L. Matthews
Ronald F. Krausz
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
George Kapusta
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Joseph L. Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1993 to 1995 to evaluate the response of ALS-resistant and ALS-susceptible corn to imazethapyr, imazaquin, chlorimuron, and CGA-152005 at label and twice label rates applied preplant incorporated (PPI) and postemergence (POST). The susceptible hybrid (P3245) and the resistant hybrid (P3245IR) grain yield were not different where weeds were removed by hand-weeding alone. Alachlor plus atrazine alone plus hand-weeding reduced grain yield by 5% compared to hand-weeding only. Imazethapyr applied PPI and POST reduced height of the susceptible hybrid 11 and 6%, respectively, averaged across imazethapyr rates. Imazaquin reduced the final height of the susceptible hybrid by 30 to 75% and reduced corn density by 62 to 78%. Chlorimuron applied PPI reduced final corn height of the susceptible hybrid by 26 to 36% and density by 27%. Chlorimuron applied PPI and imazaquin applied PPI and POST reduced grain yield of the susceptible hybrid. Imazethapyr did not reduce grain yield of the susceptible hybrid, regardless of application timing or rate. Imazethapyr, imazaquin, and chlorimuron did not reduce height, density, or grain yield of the resistant hybrid, regardless of application timing or rate. CGA-152005 applied PPI reduced grain yield of the susceptible and resistant hybrid. CGA-152005 applied POST did not reduce grain yield, regardless of hybrid or rate.

Keywords

Alachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamideatrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineCGA-152005, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyltriazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-ureachlorimuron, 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3245 and 3245IR.'ALS, acetolactate synthaseDAT, days after treatmentIR, imidazolinone-resistantPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporated, PRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 810 - 816
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Anderson, P. C. and Georgeson, M. 1989. Herbicide-tolerant mutants of corn. Genome 31:994.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1996. Exceed® product label. Novartis Corp. Greensboro, NC: Novartis Corp. 12 p.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. 1989a. Reduction of imazaquin injury to corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with antidotes. Weed Sci. 37:34–41.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. 1989b. Protection of corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) from imazethapyr toxicity with antidotes. Weed Sci. 37:296–301.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3:596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and DeFelice, M. S. 1991. Timing of chlorimuron and imazaquin application for weed control in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:232–237.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40:482–489.Google Scholar
Currie, R. S., Kwon, C. S., and Penner, D. 1995. Magnitude of imazethapyr resistance of corn (Zea mays) hybrids with altered acetolactate synthase. Weed Sci. 43:578–582.Google Scholar
Currie, R. S. and Regehr, D. L. 1995. Methods of measuring the impact of the XA17 gene on imazethapyr injury in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:676–681.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Marshall, L. C., Parker, W. B., Wyse, D. L., Somers, D. A., and Gengenbach, B. G. 1993. Herbicide tolerance and weed control in sethoxydim-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 41:213–217.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1991. Effects of safener CGA-154281 on metolachlor/atrazine injury to corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:325–330.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Ulrich, J. F. 1993. Response of corn (Zea mays) inbreds and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 41:508–516.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L., Chandler, J. M., and Smith, H. R. 1991. The influence of terbufos on the response of live corn (Zea mays) hybrids to CGA-136872. Weed Technol. 5:165–168.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1992. Interaction of terbufos and nicosulfuron on corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:999–1003.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1992. Safening of corn (Zea mays) from clomazone injury with naphthalic anhydride. Weed Technol. 6:543–547.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Soybean (Glycine max) and rotational crop response to PPI chlorimuron, clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 8:224–230.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1995. Evaluation of band vs. broadcast herbicide applications in corn and soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 8:380–384.Google Scholar
Leavitt, J.R.C. and Penner, D. 1978. Protection of corn (Zea mays) from acetanilide herbicidal injury with antidote R-25788. Weed Sci. 26:653–659.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:452–458.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E. and Hoverstad, T. R. 1991. Imazethapyr for weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:845–851.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Effect of tillage systems on the efficacy and phytotoxicity of imazaquin and imazethapyr in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:233–238.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39:629–633.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1993. In-furrow terbufos reduces field and sweet corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:934–939.Google Scholar
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. 5:130–136.Google Scholar
Newhouse, K., Wang, T., and Anderson, P. 1991. Imidazolinone-tolerant crops. In The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. Boca Raton, Fl. CRC Press. pp. 139–150.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988a. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988b. Response of corn (Zea mays) cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci. 36:625–628.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., and Benson, G. O. 1986. How a Corn Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ., Coop. Ext. Ser. Special Rep. 48. 21 p.Google Scholar
Rowe, L., Rossman, E., and Penner, D. 1990. Differential response of corn hybrids and inbreds to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 38:563–566.Google Scholar
Sander, K. W. and Barrett, M. 1989. Differential imazaquin tolerance and behavior in selected corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 37:290–295.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Wixson, M. B. 1991. Postemergence combinations of imazaquin or imazethapyr with AC 263,222 for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:644–649.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. D., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grain and fiber crops. Weed Technol. 7:625–632.Google Scholar