Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:39:36.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn (Zea mays L.) Response to Trifloxysulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dunk Porterfield  and
John W. Wilcut
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in weed-free environments to determine corn tolerance to trifloxysulfuron applied PRE or POST, and to determine the potential for trifloxysulfuron applied PRE or POST to cotton to injure corn grown in rotation the following year. Trifloxysulfuron at 3.75, 7.5, or 15 g ai/ha applied PRE or POST resulted in 98% stand reduction of imidazolinone-tolerant (IT) corn and 100% stand reduction in conventional corn. No injury occurred to imidazolinone-resistant (IR) corn. A corn cultivar yield response was observed, with conventional nontreated corn yielding 8,850 kg/ha and greater than nontreated IT corn at 7,900 kg/ha. Nontreated IR corn yielded the least, at 6,400 kg/ha, and these yields were equivalent to trifloxysulfuron-treated IR corn at 6,590 kg/ha. Cotton treated with trifloxysulfuron PRE at any rate was injured less than 8%. Both trifloxysulfuron at 7.5 g/ha POST and pyrithiobac at 70 g ai/ha POST injured cotton 11% early in the season. Neither trifloxysulfuron nor pyrithiobac influenced weed-free cotton lint yields. When grown in rotation, corn was not injured by trifloxysulfuron or pyrithiobac applied the previous year to cotton, and yields were not influenced.

Keywords

Trifloxysulfuroncotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.corn, Zea mays L.Carryovercrop injurysulfonylurea herbicideALSacetolactate synthase
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 81 - 85
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

Anonymous. 1998. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri Growth, Inc. Pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), peanut (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavey, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:820–824.Google Scholar
Bell, A. R., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 1998. Effects of staple on IR and IT corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:17.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, P. A., Woodworth, R., Rosen, B. A., Subramanian, M. V., and Seihl, D. L. 1995. A naturally point mutation confers broad range tolerance to herbicides that inhibit acetolactate synthase. J. Biol. Chem. 270:17381–17385.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. 2000. Multi-year data combined over locations for early-maturing corn hybrids. in North Carolina Measured Crop Performance Corn and Corn Silage 2000. Crop Science Report No. 186. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. P. 22.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, W. S., Knake, E. L., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Corn (Zea mays) injury following use of clomazone, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:539–544.CrossRefGoogle 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. 43:578–583.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 251–294.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducar, J. T., Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. III. 2004. Weed management in imidazolinone-resistant corn with imazapic. Weed Technol. 18:1018–1022.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Hartnett, M. E., Chui, L. F., Falco, S. C., Knowlton, S., Mauvis, C. J., and Mazur, B. J. 1993. Molecular characterization of sulfonylurea resistant ALS genes. in Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkins, R. K., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Oxford, U.K: Butterworth-Heneman. Pp. 343–353.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Johnson, D. H., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1993b. Carryover of DPX-PE350 to grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and soybean (Glycine max) on two Arkansas soils. Weed Technol. 7:645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, J. S., Yelverton, F. H., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of halosulfuron and trifloxysulfuron in green kyllinga (Kyllinga brevifolia) and false-green kyllinga (K. gracillima). Weed Sci. 52:704–710.Google Scholar
McElroy, J. S., Yelverton, F. H., Troxler, S. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Selective exposure of yellow (Cyperus esculentus) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) to postemergence treatments of CGA-362622, imazaquin, and MSMA. Weed Technol. 17:554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 7:153–155.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
Monks, C. D., Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Halton, J. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1996. Effect of AC 263,622, imazethapyr, and nicosulfuron on weed control and imidazolinone-tolerant corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 10:822–827.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Fisher, L. R., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2005. Tobacco (Nicotinia tabacum L.) response to residual and in-season treatments of CGA-362622. Weed Technol. 19:1–5.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Peanut (Arachis hypgaea) response to residual and in-season treatments of CGA-362622. Weed Technol. 17:441–445.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton cultivars (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to trifloxysulfuron postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, J. W., and Clewis, S. B. 2003. Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 51:1002–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Mixtures of CGA-362622 and bromoxynil for broadleaf weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siehl, D. L., Bengston, A. S., Brockman, J. P., Butler, J. H., Kraatz, G. W., Lamoreaux, R. J., and Subramanian, M. V. 1996. Patterns of cross-tolerance to herbicides inhibiting acetohydroxyacid synthase in commercial corn hybrids designed for tolerance to imidazolinones. Crop Sci. 36:274–278.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:21–27.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. T., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 51:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. in Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 627–661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U. S. agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops; Agriculture, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Lewis Publishers. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, and Walls, F. R. 1999. Response of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays) to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 13:484–488.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. in Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
Wright, T. R. and Penner, D. 1998. Corn (Zea mays) acetolactate synthase sensitivity to four classes of ALS-inhibiting herbicide. Weed Sci. 46:8–12.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. in Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 69–111.Google Scholar