Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:31:56.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Significance of Atrazine as a Tank-Mix Partner with Tembotrione

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
Rick A. Boydston ,
R. Ed Peachey  and
Darren Robinson
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), University of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Rick A. Boydston
Affiliation:
Vegetable and Forage Crops Research, USDA-ARS, 24106 N. Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350
R. Ed Peachey
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, 4017 Ag and Life Sciences Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331
Darren Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON, Canada NOP 2CO
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Manufacturers of several POST corn herbicides recommend tank-mixing their herbicides with atrazine to improve performance; however, future regulatory changes may place greater restrictions on atrazine use and limit its availability to growers. Our research objectives were to quantify the effects of tank-mixing atrazine with tembotrione compared to tembotrione alone on (1) weed control, (2) variability in weed control, and (3) sweet corn yield components and yield variability. Field studies were conducted for 2 yr each in Illinois, Oregon, Washington, and Ontario, Canada. Tembotrione at 31 g ha−1 was applied alone and with atrazine at 370 g ha−1 POST at the four- to five-collar stage of corn. The predominant weed species observed in the experiment were common to corn production, including large crabgrass, wild-proso millet, common lambsquarters, and velvetleaf. For nearly every weed species and species group, the addition of atrazine improved tembotrione performance by increasing mean levels of weed control 3 to 45% at 2 wk after treatment. Adding atrazine reduced variation (i.e., standard deviation) in control of the weed community by 45%. Sweet corn ear number and ear mass were 9 and 13% higher, respectively, and less variable when atrazine was applied with tembotrione, compared to tembotrione alone. Additional restrictions or the complete loss of atrazine for use in corn will necessitate major changes in sweet corn weed management systems.

Los fabricantes de varios herbicidas post-emergentes para el maíz recomiendan mezclarlos con atrazina para mejorar su eficacia; sin embargo, futuros cambios regulatorios quizá den lugar a mayores restricciones en el uso de atrazina y limite su disponibilidad para los agricultores. Los objetivos de esta investigación fueron cuantificar los efectos de mezclar atrazina con tembotrione comparado con el tembotrione aplicado solo en: 1) control de malezas, 2) la variabilidad en el control de malezas y 3) los componentes y variabilidad del rendimiento del maíz dulce. Durante dos años se llevaron a cabo estudios de campo, en Illinois, Oregon, Washington, y Ontario, Canadá. Se aplicó tembotrione solo a 31 g ha−1 y mezclado con atrazina a 370 g ha−1 en post-emergencia en la etapa de cuatro a cinco hojas del maíz. Las especies predominantes de maleza observadas en el experimento son comunes a la producción de maíz e incluyen Digitaria sanguinalis, Panicum miliaceum, Chenopodium album y Abutilon theophrasti. Para casi cada especie de maleza y grupo de especies, la adición de atrazina mejoró la eficacia del tembotrione, ya que incrementó los niveles medios de control de 3 a 45% a las dos semanas después de la aplicación. La adición de atrazina redujo la variación (desviación estándar) en el control de la comunidad de malezas en 45%. El número de mazorcas y el peso del maíz dulce fue 9 y 13% más alto, respectivamente, y hubo menor variabilidad cuando se aplicó atrazina con tembotrione, comparado con tembotrione aplicado solo. Mayores restricciones o la prohibición del uso de atrazina en el cultivo de maíz provocará la necesidad de un gran cambio en los sistemas de manejo de malezas en el maíz dulce.

Keywords

Atrazinetembotrionecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scopvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medikwild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.corn, Zea mays L.HPPD inhibitorregulatoryriskweed control variabilityyield variability
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 299 - 302
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

Abendroth, J. A., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 2006. Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol. 20:267–274.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2003. Sweet Corn Pest Management Strategic Plan. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/NCSweetcorn.pdf. Accessed: 29 January 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2006. Vegetables 2005 Summary. Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp. 17–69.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2009. Strategies for control of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and other winter annual weeds in no-till corn. Weed Technol. 23:379–383.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Atrazine Science Reevaluation: Potential Health Impacts. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0759-0003. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm. Accessed: 27 October 2009.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds of Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1999. A risk management perspective on integrated weed management. Pages 167–187 in Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York Food Products.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C., Young, B. G., and Matthews, J. L. 2002. Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol. 16:414–420.Google Scholar
Kruger, G. R., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., et al. 2009. U.S. grower views on problematic weeds and changes in weed pressure in glyphosate-resistant corn, cotton, and soybean cropping systems. Weed Technol. 23:162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2005. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/app_usage.cfm. Accessed: 3 June 2010.Google Scholar
Sutton, P., Richards, C., Buren, L., and Glasgow, L. 2002. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 58:981–984.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Gulden, R. H., and Chandler, K. 2007. A rationale for atrazine stewardship in corn. Weed Sci. 55:75–81.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Boerboom, C. M., and Rabaey, T. L. 2010. Significance of atrazine in sweet corn weed management systems. Weed Technol. 24:139–142.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Rabaey, T. L., and Boerboom, C. M. 2008. Residual weeds of sweet corn in the north central region. Weed Technol. 22:646–653.Google Scholar