Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:46:16.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Quinclorac on Following Rotational Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James R. Moyer ,
Rudy Esau  and
A. Lyle Boswall
James R. Moyer
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Rudy Esau
Affiliation:
Crop Diversification Centre, South, Brooks, AB, Canada T1R 1E6
A. Lyle Boswall
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quinclorac was registered for weed control in wheat (Triticum spp.) for western Canada in 1997. Residues from quinclorac may persist in the soil and may damage following crops; therefore, field and growth chamber experiments were conducted to determine the tolerance of several following rotational crops. Cereals and bromegrass (Bromus biebersteinii) were sufficiently tolerant that they could be seeded within 16 d of quinclorac application without risk of injury. At the other extreme, marketable and total potato (Solanum tuberosum) yields were reduced by quinclorac on irrigated land 1 yr after application. Growth chamber experiments were used to rank crops in order of their tolerance of quinclorac residues and to compare the tolerance of crops that were grown in the field with additional crops. Quinclorac injured several legume and oilseed crops when the crops were seeded immediately after application, but quinclorac did not reduce the dry matter yield of two of the most sensitive legumes, faba bean (Vicia faba) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa), 1 yr after application on irrigated land. However, based on a previous study, one can conclude that injury to these crops may occur in the field under drought conditions in rain-fed agricultural systems.

Keywords

Quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acidalfalfa, Medicago sativa L.faba bean, Vicia faba L.meadow bromegrass, Bromus biebersteinii Roem and Schultpotato, Solanum tuberosum L.Crop injurycrop rotationpotatopersistencesoil moistureDAP, days after plantingGR50, quinclorac rate causing an injury rating of 50
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 548 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Footnotes

1

Contribution 3879869 of the Lethbridge Research Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1.

For the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1999

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1998. Crop Protection with Chemicals. Agdex 606-1. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development.Google Scholar
Chism, W. J., Bingham, S. W., and Shaver, R. L. 1991. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of quinclorac in two grass species. Weed Technol. 5:771–775.Google Scholar
Conover, W. L. and Iman, R. L. 1981. Rank transformation as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am. Stat. 35:124–133.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K. and Scheltrup, F. 1997. Selective induction of 1-aminocyclopropane-1 carboxylic acid (ACC) synthase activity is involved in the selectivity of the auxin herbicide quinclorac between barnyard grass and rice. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 58:148–153.Google Scholar
Hill, B. D., Moyer, J. R., Inaba, D. J., and Doram, R. 1998. Effect of moisture on quinclorac dissipation in Lethbridge soil. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78:697–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, T., Sharun, D., and Blashko, L. 1993. Facet (BAS 514.H) carryover in wheat. Research Report of the Expert Committee on Weeds (Western Canada). pp. 1097–1098.Google Scholar
Mabury, S. A. and Crosby, D. G. 1996. Pesticide reactivity toward hydroxyl and its relationship to field persistence. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1920–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1995. Sulfonylurea herbicide effects on following crops. Weed Technol. 9:373–379.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Bergen, P., and Schaalje, G. B. 1992. Effect of 2,4-D and dicamba on following crops in conservation tillage systems. Weed Technol. 6:149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in Southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10:100–106.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/Stat User's Guide Release 6.03. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google 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
Sterling, R. D., Weber, J., Helpert, C., and von Amsberg, H. 1995. Determining rotational crop phototoxicity, binding properties, and mobility of quinclorac in soils. Abstract No. 218. WSSA Ann. Meet., 1995, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Sunohara, Y. and Matsumoto, H. 1997. Comparative physiological effects of quinclorac and auxins, and light involvement in quinclorac-induced chlorosis in corn leaves. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 58:125–132.Google Scholar