Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:21:05.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Efficacy of KIH-485 on Texas Panicum (Panicum texanum) and Selected Broadleaf Weeds in Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory L. Steele
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Peter J. Porpiglia
Affiliation:
K-I Chemical U.S.A. Inc., 11 Martine Avenue, White Plains, NY 10606
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474

Abstract

KIH-485 is an experimental herbicide being evaluated for preemergence weed control in corn. Field experiments were conducted in Burleson County, Texas, in 2003 and 2004 to compare weed control, corn tolerance, and corn yield with various rates of KIH-485 or S-metolachlor. Each herbicide was applied in single preemergence applications at four rates, or in combination with atrazine. KIH-485 at 500 g ai/ha provided better Texas panicum control than S-metolachlor by 9 WAT. KIH-485 or S-metolachlor treatments controlled Palmer amaranth at least 91% at all evaluation dates. In 2003, no other treatment controlled velvetleaf better than 500 g/ha KIH-485. The following year, all KIH-485 rates above 125 g/ha controlled velvetleaf better than any rate of S-metolachlor alone. Moreover, KIH-485 controlled all weed species as good as or better than S-metolachlor plus atrazine, regardless of KIH-485 rate. There was no significant corn injury observed, and grain yield reflected the effects of weed control.

Type
Research Article
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. 2003. KIH-485 Herbicide. Technical Information. K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc., White Plains, NY.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004. Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary. Washington, D.C. NASS, USDA. Pp. 2, 21–33.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1991. Early preplant atrazine and metolachlor in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:6671.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Colburn, A. E., and Kearney, N. S. 1994. Herbicides for reduced tillage production in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the Southwest. Weed Technol. 8:212216.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, A. S. 1951. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 684.Google Scholar
O'Connell, P. J., Harms, C. T., and Allen, J. R. F. 1998. Metolachlor, s-metolachlor and their role within sustainable weed-management. Crop Prot. 17:207212.Google Scholar
Porpiglia, P. J., Nakatani, M., Ueno, R., and Yamaji, Y. 2004. Two-year's results with KIH-485: a new, broad-spectrum herbicide. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. 2004. First year experiences with KIH-485. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 58:18.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., Lavy, T. L., Mattice, J. D., Gbur, E. E., and Skulman, B. W. 1997. Trace level pesticide detections in Arkansas surface waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31:395401.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S. and Wax, L. M. 2001. Weed control in field corn (Zea mays) with RPA 201772 combinations with atrazine and metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15:249256.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Bauman, T. T. et al. 2004. Assessment of weed control strategies for corn in the north-central United States. Weed Technol. 18:203210.Google Scholar
USEPA. 1995. R. E. D. Facts: Metolachlor. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-738-F-95-007.Google Scholar