Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:37:52.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat Cultivar Tolerance to AE F130060 03

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Daniel E. Brann  and
Carl A. Griffey
William A. Bailey
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
Daniel E. Brann
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Carl A. Griffey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted under weed-free conditions in 2000 and 2001 to investigate the responses of 10 soft red winter wheat cultivars to postemergence applications of the experimental herbicide AE F130060 03 at 15 g ai/ha with the crop safener AE F107892 at 30 g ai/ha. In the greenhouse, AE F130060 03 injured wheat 7 to 12% and reduced height 11 to 14% at 3 wk after treatment (WAT) across all cultivars but did not reduce biomass of any cultivar. In the field, AE F130060 03 injured wheat 11 to 32%, reduced tiller number of all cultivars except ‘Roane’, ‘Coker 9663’, and ‘VA98W-593’, and reduced height of all cultivars except ‘USG 3209’ and VA98W-593 at 3 WAT. By 9 WAT, tiller number and height of treated wheat was similar to that of nontreated wheat. AE F130060 03 did not influence moisture content or kernel weight of any cultivar. However, AE F130060 03 reduced grain yield in ‘FFR 518’, Coker 9663, and VA98W-593 in both years as well as in ‘AgriPro Patton’ in 2001. These yield reductions suggest that further investigation into soft red winter wheat cultivar tolerance to AE F130060 03 is needed.

Keywords

AE F130060 03, 8.3:1.7 mixture of AE F130060 00, proposed common name mesosulfuron-methyl, 2-[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl carbamoyl)sulfamoyl]-4-methanesulfonamido)-p-toluic acid, plus AE F115008 00, proposed common name iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium, 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl]benzoic acidAE F107892, proposed common name mefenpyr diethyl, 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-dicarboxylic acidwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘AgriPro Patton’, ‘AGS 2000’, ‘Coker 9663’, ‘FFR 518’, ‘Pioneer 2643’, ‘Pioneer 26R24’, ‘Roane’, ‘Sisson (VA96W-250)’, ‘USG 3209’, ‘VA98W-593’Differential cultivar responsePOST, postemergenceWAT, week after treatment.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 881 - 886
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, M., Bertges, W., Hicks, C., Luff, K., Hoobler, M., Maruska, D., Paulsgrove, M., and Thorsness, K. 2002. The use of AE F130060 herbicide for grass control in wheat. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 42:76.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002a. Mesomaxx Technical Bulletin. Lyon, France: Aventis CropScience. 28 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002b. Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium Technical Bulletin. Lyon, France: Aventis CropScience. 32 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yields in eight Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14:402–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Mesosulfuron/iodosulfuron (AE F130060) for Italian ryegrass control in VA wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:21–22.Google Scholar
Baker, T. K. and Peeper, T. F. 1990. Differential tolerance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to cyanazine and triazinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:569–575.Google Scholar
Baltazar, A. M. and Monaco, T. J. 1984. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of bentazon by two pepper species. Weed Sci. 32:258–263.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. A. and Gorski, S. F. 1989. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) endosperm mutants to chloroacetamide and thiocarbamate herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:475–478.Google Scholar
Brann, D. E., Griffey, C. A., Behl, H., Rucker, E., and Pridgeon, T. 2000. Small Grains in 2000. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Extension Publication No. 424-001. 19 p.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1989. Response of peanut cultivars to herbicide treatments. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 42:28.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L. and York, A. C. 2002. Italian ryegrass control in wheat with mesosulfuron-methyl. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:22–23.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Rosow, K. M., Geadelmann, J. L., and Openshaw, S. J. 1989. Differential tolerance of corn genotypes to DPX-M6316. Weed Sci. 37:651–657.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1998. Differential tolerance of corn (Zea mays) inbreds to four sulfonylurea herbicides and bentazon. Weed Technol. 12:474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hand, S. S., Smith, T. L., Sanderson, J., Barr, G., Strachan, F., and Paulsgrove, M. 2002. AE F130060—a new selective herbicide for grass control in wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:142–143.Google Scholar
Harrison, H. F. and Farnham, M. W. 2001. Differential tolerance of broccoli (Brassica oleracea) cultivars to preemergence application of oxyfluorfen. Weed Technol. 12:14–18.Google Scholar
Hopkins, W. L. 1997. Safeners and plant growth regulators. in Global Herbicide Directory. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Agriculture Chemicals Information Services. 26 p.Google Scholar
Motsenbocker, C. E. and Monaco, T. J. 1993. Differential tolerance of sweet potato (Ipomoea botata) clones to metribuzin. Weed Technol. 7:349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runyan, T. J., McNeil, W. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, J., Banks, P. A., and Nichols, R. L. 1985. Soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar response to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 34:66–69.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Peeper, T. F., and Westerman, R. L. 1986. Persistence of phytotoxicity of metribuzin and its ethylthio analog. Weed Sci. 34:409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Wesley, M. T. 1991. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar tolerance and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control with diclofop, BAY SMY 1500, and metribuzin. Weed Technol. 5:776–781.Google Scholar
Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., McGuire, J. A., and Hicks, T. V. 1991. Foliar penetration and phytotoxicity of paraquat as influenced by peanut cultivar. Peanut Sci 18:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, D. W., Monaco, T. J., and Collins, W. W. 1989. Differential tolerance of peppers (Capsicum annuum) to bentazon. Weed Technol. 3:579–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar