Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T10:19:20.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hard Red Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Tolerance to Postemergence Grass Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jochum J. Wiersma ,
Beverly R. Durgan  and
Krishona B. Martinson
Jochum J. Wiersma*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Beverly R. Durgan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Krishona B. Martinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wiers002@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eight hard red spring wheat cultivars were tested for tolerance to five postemergence grass herbicides at two locations in Minnesota in 1999 and 2000 at the labeled, one and one-half, or twice the labeled rate. Fenoxaprop plus safener and ICIA 0604 caused the least injury and did not reduce grain yield for most cultivars. Flucarbazone caused intermediate injury and a slight decrease in grain yield for half the cultivars tested. Difenzoquat caused the most injury, regardless of whether the cultivar was genetically sensitive to difenzoquat. Tank-mixing difenzoquat with imazamethabenz reduced injury, even for cultivars that were not genetically sensitive to difenzoquat. Drought stress before application of the postemergence grass herbicides that contain difenzoquat resulted in more potential for crop injury. Excess precipitation combined with high temperatures after application resulted in more potential for crop injury for the other postemergence grass herbicides included in this experiment.

Keywords

DifenzoquatfenoxapropflucarbazoneICIA 0604 (proposed common name, tralkoxydim2-cyclohexen-[1-one,2-]1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-(9CI))imazamethabenzwheat, Triticum aestivum L. emend. ThellCrop injuryherbicide toleranceHRSW, hard red spring wheat
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 297 - 301
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

Behrens, R. and Strand, O. E. 1979. Survey of Wild Oat and Other Weeds in Small Grains in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Extension Service and the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. pp. 7–12.Google Scholar
Busch, R. H., Behrens, R., Ageez, A., and Elakkad, M. 1989. Inheritance of tolerance to, and agronomic effects of, difenzoquat herbicide in spring wheat. Crop Sci. 29: 47–50.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R. and Cameron, J. 1998a. Wheat and barley response to various postemergence herbicides at Crookston, MN. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55: 80–83.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R. and Miller, D. W. 1998b. Wheat and barley response to various postemergence herbicides at Rosemount, MN. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55: 72–77.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 108–116.Google Scholar
Hicks, C. P., Thorsness, K. B., and Stewart, J. F. 1998. Fenoxyprop-p-ethyl + AE107892 for use in cereals. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 54–55.Google Scholar
Newhouse, K. E., Bowden, B. A., Patrick, G. M., Fiendel, D. E., Gibb, B., Bulman, B. M., and Rasmusson, D. E. 1998. Control of wild oat, green foxtail and selected broadleaf weeds in spring wheat with flucarbazone-sodium. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 52–53.Google Scholar
Pallet, K. E. 1986. The mechanism of activity and selectivity of the wild oat herbicides. Proc. 1986 Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds. 843–854.Google Scholar
Snape, J. W., Angus, W. J., Parker, B., and Leckie, D. 1987. The chromosomal location in wheat of genes conferring differential response to the wild oat herbicide difenzoquat. J. Agron. Sci. 108: 543–548.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R., Lupton, F. G. H., and Oliver, R. H. 1984. The tolerance of difenzoquat and diclofop-methyl by winter wheat varieties at different stages. Ann. Appl. Biol. 104: 151–159.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R., Lupton, F. G. H., Oliver, R. H., and Preston, S. R. 1982. Tolerance of several wild oat herbicides by a range of winter wheat varieties. Ann. Appl. Biol. 100: 365–373.Google Scholar
Winfield, R. J. 1974. Trials with difenzoquat for the control of wild oats in wheat and barley and on crop tolerance in wheat. Proc. 12th Br. Weed Control Conf. 875–881.Google Scholar
Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1997. Effects of environment on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with imazamethabenz or fenoxaprop tank-mixed with additives or MCPA. J. Plant Growth Regul. 16: 63–67.Google Scholar