Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:21:50.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Imazamox Application Timing and Rate on Imazamox Resistant Wheat Cultivars in the Pacific Northwest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Arron H. Carter ,
Jennifer Hansen ,
Thomas Koehler ,
Donald C. Thill  and
Robert S. Zemetra
Arron H. Carter*
Affiliation:
University of Idaho, Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844
Jennifer Hansen
Affiliation:
University of Idaho, Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844
Thomas Koehler
Affiliation:
University of Idaho, Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
University of Idaho, Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844
Robert S. Zemetra
Affiliation:
University of Idaho, Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grass weeds are a major problem in winter wheat fields in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Control of these weeds is now enhanced with the use of imazamox resistant winter wheat cultivars, which have been rapidly adopted by wheat growers. However, the effect of spray rate and timing on crop injury and agronomic traits of wheat cultivars with different genetic backgrounds has not been adequately evaluated. Thus, experiments were conducted near Moscow and Genesee, ID in the 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 growing seasons to evaluate the effect of imazamox on four resistant cultivars and seven resistant breeding lines. Wheat plants were treated at the 3- to 5-leaf stage and the 3- to 7-tiller stage with 45 and 90 g ai/ha of imazamox. Visible crop injury was evaluated from 14 to 35 d after treatment (DAT). Heading date, plant height, grain yield and test weight, and end-use grain quality also were measured. The cultivar by treatment interaction was significant at 21 DAT, caused by a differential response of wheat lines to imazamox treatment. This interaction also was significant for plant height and grain yield. Although cultivars and breeding lines responded differently to imazamox treatment, two lines consistently showed the least levels (3 to 8%) of crop injury, with no reductions in plant height or grain yield following imazamox application. Orthogonal contrasts of visible crop injury at 21 DAT showed that the 2× imazamox rate caused more crop injury (12%) than the 1× rate (7%). The 2× rate of imazamox reduced plant height 1%, grain yield 8%, test weight 1%, and percent flour yield 1%. All other traits were not affected by application of imazamox. Application timing only minimally affected crop injury, and had no effect on agronomic or end-use quality traits.

Keywords

Imazamoxwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘FS4’‘Brundage’‘Brundage 96’‘Lambert’‘87-52814A’Imidazolinone-resistantPacific Northwest
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 895 - 899
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

Ball, D. A., Young, F. L., and Ogg, A. G. 1999. Selective control of jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) with imazamox in herbicide-resistant wheat. Weed Technol. 13:77–82.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. A., Peeper, T. F., Epplin, F. M., and Krenzer, E. G. Jr. 2001. Effects of herbicides on Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), forage production, and economic returns from dual-purpose winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 15:264–270.Google Scholar
Burns, J. W. and Bragg, D. 2000a. Crop profile for dry pea in Washington. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. MISC0362E.Google Scholar
Burns, J. W. and Bragg, D. 2000b. Crop profile for lentils in Washington. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. MISC0363E.Google Scholar
Burns, J. W. and Bragg, D. 2000c. Crop profile for canola in Washington. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. MISC0364E.Google Scholar
Burns, J. W. and Bragg, D. 2001. Crop profile for barley in Washington. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. MISC0367E.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. M., Wille, M. J., and Thill, D. C. 2002. Rotation, seeding rate, and herbicide intensity effects on weed populations in wheat, barley, and pea. Proc. Western Soc. Weed Sci. 55:36.Google Scholar
Claassen, M. M. and Peterson, D. E. 2002. Weed control in imidazolinone resistant wheat with imazamox. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 57:9.Google Scholar
Dahmer, M., Carlson, D., Fellows, G., Taylor, F., Fabrizius, C., Shelton, C., and Schmidt, D. 2002. Clearfield™ wheat production system- Beyond™ herbicide (imazamox) for use with Clearfield wheat. Weed Sci. Soc. America Abstract 42:46.Google Scholar
Frihauf, J. C., Miller, S. D., and Alford, C. M. 2005. Imazamox rates, timings, and adjuvants affect imidazolinone-tolerant winter wheat cultivars. Weed Technol. 19:599–607.Google Scholar
Hanson, B. D., Shaner, D. L., Westra, P., and Nissen, S. J. 2006. Response of selected hard red wheat lines to imazamox as affected by number and location of resistance genes, parental background, and growth habit. Crop Sci. 46:1206–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jemmett, E. D., Rauch, T. A., and Thill, D. C. 2005. Rattail fescue control in imazamox-tolerant winter wheat with various herbicides. Western Society of Weed Science Research Program Report 157–161.Google Scholar
Juergens, L. A., Young, D. L., Schillinger, W. F., and Hinman, H. R. 2004. Economics of alternative no-till spring crop rotations in Washingtons wheat-fallow region. Agron. J. 96:154–158.Google Scholar
Newhouse, K. E., Smith, W. A., Starrett, M. S., Schaefer, T. J., and Singh, B. K. 1992. Tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides in wheat. Plant Physiol. 100:882–886.Google Scholar
Pozniak, C. J., Birk, I. T., O'Donoughue, L. S., Menard, C., Hucl, P. J., and Singh, B. K. Physiological and molecular characterization of mutation-derived imidazolinone resistance in spring wheat. Crop Sci. 44:1434–1443.Google Scholar
Rainbolt, C., Thill, D., Yenish, J., and Ball, D. 2004. Herbicide-resistant grass weed development in imidazolinone-resistant wheat: weed biology and herbicide rotation. Weed Technol. 18:860–868.Google Scholar
Rainbolt, C. R., Thill, D. C., Zemetra, R. S., and Shaner, D. L. 2005. Imidazolinone-resistant wheat acetolactate synthase in vivo response to imazamox. Weed Technol. 19:539–548.Google Scholar
Rauch, T. A. and Thill, D. C. 2004. Grass weed control in imidazolinone-resistant winter wheat with imazamox. Western Society of Weed Science Research Program Report 122–124.Google Scholar
Souza, E. J., Lazar, M. D., Guttieri, M. J., Thill, D., and Rauch, T. 2006. Registration of ‘Idaho 587’ wheat. Crop Sci. 46:1387–1388.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2002. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 9.1. Cary, N.C. SAS Institute Inc. 421–480.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. B. and Woodward, F. I. 1994. Some influences of CO2 enrichment, nitrogen nutrition and competition on grain yield and quality in spring wheat and barley. J. Exper. Biol. 45:937–942.Google Scholar
USDA NASS 2005. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed: April 17, 2006.Google Scholar
U.S. Wheat 2005. U.S Wheat Associates 2005 Crop Quality Report. U.S. Wheat Associates http://www.uswheat.org/USWPublicIII.nsf/0/751c9d2f0c38528985256f1c0064b496/$FILE/CQ2005eng.pdf. Accessed: January 8, 2006.Google Scholar
Zemetra, R. S., Liu, C. T., Kronstad, W. E., Lauver, M., and Haugerud, N. 1995. Registration of ‘Lambert’ wheat. Crop Sci. 35:1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zemetra, R. S., Souza, E. J., Lauver, M., Windes, J., Guy, S. O., Brown, B., Robertson, L., and Kruk, M. 1998. Registration of ‘Brundage’ wheat. Crop Sci. 38:1404.Google Scholar
Zemetra, R. S., Lauver, M. L., O'Brien, K., Koehler, T., Souza, E. J., Guy, S. O., Robertson, L., and Brown, B. 2003. Registration of ‘Brundage 96’ wheat. Crop Sci. 43:1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar