Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:18:03.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Chlorophyll Assay to Assess Sethoxydim Activity in Two Grass Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Anne M. Smith  and
William H. Vanden Born
Anne M. Smith
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. T6G 2P5
William H. Vanden Born
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. T6G 2P5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of ammonium sulfate on the activity of sethoxydim on wild oats and barley was examined under field conditions in 1989 and 1990. A chlorophyll assay, together with plant height and dry weight determinations, was used to quantify the visual ratings for sethoxydim activity. Ammonium sulfate enhanced the activity of 75 and 150 g ai ha-1 sethoxydim in 1989. In 1990, ammonium sulfate increased the activity of the lower rate of sethoxydim only. Of the three quantitative assays, chlorophyll concentration alone differentiated the more rapid development of injury symptoms with added ammonium sulfate that was observed in the visual ratings. The chlorophyll assay was not better than the visual rating assessment, however, and appears to offer no advantages that would justify the time required.

Keywords

Sethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one]barley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Leduc’wild oats, Avena fatua L. ♯ AVEFAAmmonium sulfatedry weightplant heightvisual ratings
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 355 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Akey, W. C. and Morrison, I. N. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on wild oat (Avena fatua) response to diclofop. Weed Sci. 31:247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Brown, S. M., Chandler, J. M., and Morrison, J. E. Jr. 1988. Glyphosate for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in no-till sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 36:510–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Campbell, J. R., and Penner, D. 1985. Sethoxydim metabolism in monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants. Weed Sci. 33:771–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Campbell, J. R., and Penner, D. 1987. Retention, absorption, translocation and distribution of sethoxydim in monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants. Weed Res. 27:179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Carlson, D., Zorner, P., Evans, R., Gourd, D., and Hazen, J. 1989. The influence of DASH adjuvant on the efficacy of sethoxydim. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 29:23.Google Scholar
6. Chernicky, J. P., Gossett, B. J., and Murphy, T. R. 1984. Factors influencing control of annual grasses with sethoxydim or Ro-13-8895. Weed Sci. 32:174–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Chow, P.N.P., and MacGregor, A. W. 1983. Effect of ammonium sulphate and surfactants on activity of the herbicide sethoxydim. J. Pestic. Sci. 8:519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Coupland, D. 1987. Influence of environmental factors on the performance of sethoxydim against Elymus repens (L.). Weed Res. 27: 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Fawcett, J. A., Harvey, R. G., Arnold, W. E., Bauman, T. T., Eberlein, C. V., Kells, J. J., Moshier, L. J., Slife, F. W., and Wilson, R. C. 1987. Influence of environment on corn (Zea mays) tolerance to sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 35:568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Harker, K. N., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1988. Ammonium sulphate enhances control of annual grass weeds in canola (Brassica campestris) with sethoxydim. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:1087–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hosaka, H., Hideo, I., and Ishikawa, H. 1984. Response of monocotyledons to BAS 9052 OH. Weed Sci. 32:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Ivany, J. A. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:194–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Ivany, J. A. 1988. Control of quackgrass with glyphosate and additives. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:1095–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., and Corbin, F. T. 1989. Effect of ammonium sulfate and bentazon on sethoxydim absorption. Weed Technol. 3: 674–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. McInnes, D., Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1989. The influence of ultraviolet light on the phytotoxicity of sethoxydim with various adjuvants. Abstracts 2nd Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, Blacksburg, VA. p. 35.Google Scholar
16. McKeague, M., Hutchins, A. P., Charvat, L. D., Gibson, S. W., and Burdick, B. 1986. Fertilizer additives with sethoxydim on annual and perennial grasses in soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:41.Google Scholar
17. Moreland, D. E. 1986. Measurements of reactions mediated by isolated chloroplasts. p. 309–323 in Camper, N. D., ed., “Research Methods in Weed Science”. 3rd ed. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL 61820.Google Scholar
18. Turner, D. J., and Loader, M.P.C. 1984. Effect of ammonium sulphate and related salts on the phytotoxicity of dichlorprop and other herbicides used for broadleaved weed control in cereals. Weed Res. 24: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wills, G. D. 1984. Toxicity and translocation of sethoxydim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) as affected by environment. Weed Sci. 32: 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wilson, B. J., and Nishimoto, R. K. 1975. Ammonium sulfate enhancement of picloram activity and absorption. Weed Sci. 23:289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 1990. Effects of (NH4)2SO4 and BCH 81508 S on efficacy of sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 4:76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Zorner, P., Hazen, J., Evans, R., Gourd, D., and Fitzgerald, T. 1989. The influence of DASH adjuvant in limiting photodegradation of sethoxydim on leaf surfaces. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am., 29:208.Google Scholar