Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T01:58:20.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn Response to POST-Applied HPPD-Inhibitor Based Premix Herbicides with In-Furrow and Foliar-Applied Insecticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Scott D. Stewart  and
Sandy Steckel
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Jackson, TN 38301
Scott D. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, Jackson, TN 38301
Sandy Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, Jackson, TN 38301
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lsteckel@utk.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years injury has been reported in numerous Tennessee corn fields treated with an organophosphate (OP) insecticide and either a mesotrione- or tembotrione-based herbicide premix. Research was conducted with the objective to determine if corn treated with an in-furrow application of chlorpyrifos or a foliar application of chlorpyrifos or bifenthrin, or a combination of in-furrow and foliar treatment, would be more predisposed to injury when either a premix of S-metolachlor, mesotrione, and glyphosate (meso premix) or a premix of tembotrione plus thiencarbazone (tembo premix) was applied. The main effects of insecticide or herbicide, the two-way interaction of insecticide by herbicide, and the three-way interaction of herbicide by insecticide by application type of insecticide were all significant for injury as well as yield. When chlorpyrifos was used both in-furrow and foliarly on corn treated with the tembo premix, injury was increased to 56% and yield was reduced 58% compared with corn that had not been treated with that insecticide. This use pattern of chlorpyrifos utilized in-furrow followed by chlorpyrifos applied foliarly with the tembo premix essentially doubled the injury (29 to 56%) and increased yield loss from 41% where chlorpyrifos was only utilized foliarly to 49% when chlorpyrifos was applied in-furrow and foliarly. Corn injury was negligible (< 6%) and yield was similar where the meso premix was examined in combination of both types of insecticide applications. This study clearly demonstrated the phytotoxic interaction between these two herbicide premixes and the OP insecticide chlorpyrifos. Therefore, growers need to be mindful of which herbicides are utilized when OP insecticides are used for insect management.

En años recientes en Tennessee, han habido numerosos reportes de daño en maíz (Zea mays) tratado con un insecticida organophosphate (OP) y pre-mezclas con los herbicidas mesotrione o tembotrione. Se realizó una investigación con el objetivo de determinar si el maíz tratado con una aplicación de chlorpyrifos en el surco o una aplicación foliar de chlorpyrifos o bifenthrin, o una combinación de tratamientos en el surco y foliar, estarían más predispuestos al daño cuando se aplica una premezcla de S-metolachlor, mesotrione, y glyphosate (premezcla meso) o una premezcla de tembotrione más thiencarbazone (premezcla tembo). Los efectos principales de insecticida o herbicida, la interacción en dos direcciones de insecticida por herbicida, y la interacción en tres direcciones de herbicida por insecticida por tipo de aplicación del insecticida fueron todos significativos para daño y rendimiento. Cuando se usó chlorpyrifos en el surco y foliarmente en maíz tratado con la premezcla tembo, el daño incrementó a 56% y el rendimiento se redujo 58% al compararse con el maíz que no tuvo tratamiento con insecticidas. Este uso de chlorpyrifos utilizado en el surco seguido de chlorpyrifos aplicado foliarmente con la premezcla tembo esencialmente duplicó el daño (29 a 56%) e incrementó la pérdida de rendimiento de 41% donde se aplicó chlorpyrifos solamente foliarmente a 49% cuando se aplicó chlorpyrifos en el surco y foliarmente. El daño en el maíz fue casi no detectable (<6%) y el rendimiento fue similar donde se examinó la premezcla meso en combinación con ambos tipos de aplicación de insecticida. Este estudio demostró claramente la interacción fitotóxica entre estas dos premezclas de herbicidas y el insecticida OP chlorpyrifos. Por esta razón, los productores necesitan ser conscientes acerca de cuales herbicidas son utilizados cuando se usan insecticidas OP para el manejo de insectos.

Keywords

Bifenthrinchlorpyrifosmesotrionemesotrione and glyphosate (meso premix)S-metolachlor, tembotrionetembotrione plus thiencarbazone (tembo premix)corn, Zea mays L. ‘DeKalb DKC 64–83 VT Triple Pro', DeKalb DKC 61–88 VT Triple Pro'Cornherbicide and insecticide corn injuryherbicide and insecticide interaction
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 18 - 23
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

Abel, CA, Wilson, RA, Wiseman, BR, White, WH, Davis, FM (2000) Conventional resistance of experimental maize lines to corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), southwestern corn borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), and sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J Econ Entomol 93:982–988 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anonymous (2014a) Halex GT herbicide product label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. Pp12–13 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2014b) Capreno herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience. Pp10–11 Google Scholar
Buntin, GD, Flanders, KL, Lynch, RE (2004) Assessment of experimental Bt events against fall armyworm and corn earworm in field corn. J Econ Entomol 97:259–264 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:655–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, BA, Leonard, BR, Riley, TJ (2004) Management of feeding damage and survival of southwestern corn borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) with Bacillus thuringiensis transgenic field corn. J Econ Entomol 97:2106–2116 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, WJ, Shields, E, Cherney, DJR, Cherney, JH (2007) Seed-applied insecticides inconsistently affect corn forage in continuous corn. Agron J 99:1640–1644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, TL, Nissen, SJ, Mortensen, DA, Meinke, LJ (1993) The influence of terbufos on primisulfuron absorption and fate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 41:664–668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gassmann, AJ, Petzold-Maxwell, JL, Keweshan, RS, Dunbar, MW (2011) Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22629 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardke, JT, Leonard, BRR, Huang, F, Jackson, RE (2010) Damage and survivorship of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on transgenic field corn expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins. Crop Prot 30:168–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, CA, Ingram, JW, Douglas, WA (1958) Insecticides for control of the sugarcane beetle on corn. J Econ Entomol 51:631–633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, FN, Leonard, BR, Gable, RH (2006) Comparative susceptibility of European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, and sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) to Cry1Ab protein in a commercial Bacillus thuringiensis corn hybrid. J Econ Entomol 99:194–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewett, MR, Chomas, A, Kells, JJ, DiFonzo, CD (2008) Corn response to mesotrione as affected by soil insecticide, application method, and rate. Crop Manag DOI: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, CS, Penner, D (1995) The interaction of insecticides with herbicide activity. Weed Technol 9:119–124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, A, Johnson, J (2008) Interpreting three-way interactions using SAS. South East SAS Users Group. Paper St-139. http://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2008/ST-139.pdf Google Scholar
McClure, AM (2010) Planting Corn for Grain in Tennessee. University of Tennessee Extension, Bulletin W077. https://utextension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/W077.pdf.Google Scholar
Accessed July 5, 2013 Google Scholar
Morton, CA, Harvey, RG, Kells, JJ, Landis, DA, Lueschen, WE, Fritz, VA (1993) In-furrow terbufos reduces field and sweet corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 7:934–939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, CA, Harvey, RG, Wedberg, JL, Kells, JJ, Landis, DA, Lueschen, WE (1994) Influence of corn rootworm insecticides on the response of field corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 8:289–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, WJ, Fox, H (1933) The rough-headed corn stalk beetle in the southern states and its control. USDA Farm. Bull. 875 (Rev.)Google Scholar
Rahman, A, James, TK (1993) Enhanced activity of nicosulfuron in combinations with soil-applied insecticides in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 7:824–829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, SD, McClure, AM (2014) 2014 Insect control recommendations for field crops. University of Tennessee Extension, Publication 1768. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, T, Cavato, T, Brar, G, Coombe, T, DeGooyer, T, Ford, S, Groth, M, Howe, A, Johnson, S, Kolacz, K, Pilcher, C, Purcell, J, Romano, C, English, L, Pershing, J (2005) A method of controlling corn rootworm feeding using a Bacillus thuringiensis protein expressed in transgenic maize. Crop Sci. 45:931–938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar