Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:45:22.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Selected Weed Species to Postemergence Imazethapyr and Bentazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Troy A. Bauer
Affiliation:
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824-1325

Abstract

Imazethapyr and bentazon were applied with petroleum oil adjuvant in a factorial arrangement to weed species in greenhouse and field research to determine if postemergence weed control by imazethapyr was antagonized when bentazon was tank-mixed. Tank-mixing 840 g/ha of bentazon with 13 or 27 g/ha of imazethapyr increased redroot pigweed and eastern black nightshade dry weight as compared to Colby's expected values in the greenhouse. However, weed control was not reduced in field studies. Subsequent greenhouse studies indicated that soil interception and resulting root uptake of imazethapyr increased redroot pigweed control. Bentazon decreased foliar absorption of 14C-imazethapyr by 15% and translocation of 14C from the treated leaf by more than 50% compared to l4C-imazethapyr applied alone.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1990. Amiben's loss limits dry bean herbicide options. Prairie Farmer. Jan. 2., 1990. p. 89.Google Scholar
2. Cambell, J. R. and Penner, D. 1982. Compatibility of diclofop and BAS 9052 with bentazon. Weed Sci. 30:458462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3:596601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cole, T. A., Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hicks, T. V. 1989. Behavior of imazethapyr in soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 37:639644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Devine, M. D., Bestman, H. D., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1990. Physiological basis for different phloem mobilities of chlorsulfuron and clopyralid. Weed Sci. 38:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Fuerst, E. P. and Norman, M. A. 1991. Interactions of herbicides with photosynthetic electron transport. Weed Sci. 39:458464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hartzler, K. K. and Foy, C. L. 1983. Compatibility of BAS 9052 OH with acifluorfen and bentazon. Weed Sci. 31:597599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:163.Google Scholar
10. Mahoney, M. D. and Penner, D. 1975. Bentazon translocation and metabolism in soybean and navy bean. Weed Sci. 23:265270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1988. Dry edible bean tolerance to postemergence herbicides. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:36.Google Scholar
12. Rhodes, G. N. and Coble, H. D. 1984. Influence of application variables on antagonism between sethoxydim and bentazon. Weed Sci. 32:436441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Rhodes, D. G. and Coble, H. D. 1984. Influence of bentazon on the absorption and translocation of sethoxydim in goosegrass (Eleusine indica L.). Weed Sci. 32:595597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Riley, D. G. and Shaw, D. R. 1988. Influence of imazapyr on the control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) with chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 36:663666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Riley, D. G. and Shaw, D. R. 1989. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) control with imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 3:9598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Sorensen, V. M., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1987. The interaction of acifluorfen and bentazon in herbicidal combinations. Weed Sci. 35:449456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Suwanketnikon, R., Hatzios, K. K., and Penner, D. 1982. The site of electron transport inhibition of bentazon (3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-(4)3H-one 2,2-dioxide) in isolated chloroplasts. Can. J. Bot. 60:409412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:3943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wanamarta, G., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1989. The basis of bentazon antagonism on sethoxydim absorption and activity. Weed Sci. 37:400404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1987. Influence of inorganic salts and imazapyr on control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) with imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 1:328331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:2226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Wilson, R. G. 1989. New herbicides for weed control in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol. 3:523526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. WSSA Herbicide Handbook Committee. 1989. Herbicide Handbook, 6th ed. Champaign, IL.Google Scholar