Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:39:38.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Imidazolinone-Resistant Corn, Several Weeds, and Two Rotational Crops to Trifloxysulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Gregory R. Armel  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 to evaluate the response of imidazolinone-resistant (IR) corn and selected weeds to trifloxysulfuron applied postemergence (POST). Treatments included a nontreated control and S-metolachlor applied preemergence at 1,075 g ai/ha followed by (fb) trifloxysulfuron POST at 0, 3.8, 7.5, 11.2, and 15 g ai/ha. IR corn visible injury was less than 6% from field applications of trifloxysulfuron. Visual symptoms were transient, and IR corn yield was not affected by trifloxysulfuron. Common ragweed, common lambsquarters, annual grass species (giant foxtail and large crabgrass), and carpetweed were controlled at least 95% by S-metolachlor fb trifloxysulfuron applications. Morningglory species (ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, and tall morningglory) were controlled at least 97% in 2000 and greater than 77% in 2001 from S-metolachlor fb trifloxysulfuron. Jimsonweed was not adequately controlled. S-metolachlor alone controlled annual grass species 90% but did not control the broadleaf weeds that were present. Wheat was planted following IR corn harvest, and non-IR corn was planted the following spring. No visible response was observed to rotational wheat or non-IR corn crops. Rotational non-IR corn yield was not affected by trifloxysulfuron and was not different from the yield of corn treated with S-metolachlor alone. In greenhouse studies, IR corn was injured 10% at 10 d after treatment with 380 g/ha trifloxysulfuron POST, but recovery was rapid. Based upon results, trifloxysulfuron may be used as an herbicide in IR corn, and rotational wheat and non-IR corn may be planted at normal intervals after cotton harvest.

Keywords

TrifloxysulfuronS-metolachlorcarpetweed, Mollugo verticillata (L.) # MOLVEcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L # AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, I. lacunosa L. # IPOLAtall morningglory, I. purpurea (L.) Roth # IPOPUcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 32Z18 IR’, ‘Pioneer 33G26’wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Pocahontas’CarryoversulfonylureaALS, acetolactate synthase enzyme (EC 4.1.3.18)DAT, days after postemergence treatmentfb, followed byIR, imidazolinone-resistantPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 744 - 748
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

Anderson, P. C. and Georgeson, M. 1989. Herbicide-tolerant mutants of corn. Genome 31:994–999.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J., Bridges, D. C., and Grey, T. 2000. CGA 362622 for postemergence weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:26–27.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–276.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil Test Recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publication 834. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University. P. 16.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., and Monks, C. D. 2001. Evaluation of CGA-362622 for weed control in Alabama cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Anaheim, CA, January 9–13, 2001. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1210.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:163–166.Google Scholar
Kendig, A. and Ohmes, A. 2001. CGA 362622 for early postemergence weed control in cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Anaheim, CA, January 9–13, 2001. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1211.Google Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., and Buehler, R. E. et al. 1996. Glyphosate-tolerant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1960–1966.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003a. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of CGA 362622 in cotton and two weeds. Weed Sci. 51:157–162.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2003b. Mixtures of CGA 362622 and bromoxynil for broadleaf weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004. Mixtures of glyphosate with CGA 362622 for weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:16–22.Google Scholar
Stalker, D. M., McBride, K. E., and Malyj, L. D. 1988. Herbicide resistance in transgenic plants expressing a bacterial detoxification gene. Science 242:419–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsaftaris, A. 1996. The development of herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops. Field Crops Res. 45:115–123.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. and Miller, D. K. 2001. Evaluation of CGA 362622 in Louisiana cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Anaheim, CA, January 9–13, 2001. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1232.Google Scholar
Wright, T. R. and Penner, D. 1998. Corn (Zea mays) acetolactate synthase sensitivity to four classes of ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:8–12.Google Scholar