Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T17:46:47.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Mode of Action of CGA-154281, A Protectant for Corn (Zea mays) from Metolachlor Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Loston Rowe ,
James J. Kells  and
Donald Penner
Loston Rowe
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to determine the influence of herbicide rate, hybrid variability, and soil moisture on the effectiveness of CGA-154281 in protecting corn seedlings from metolachlor injury. High rates of metolachlor caused significant injury to seedlings of sensitive corn hybrids. However, with metolachlor plus CGA-154281, very few injury symptoms were observed, even with the 7.8 kg ha–1 rate and the most sensitive hybrid. Corn seedlings were not injured by metolachlor plus CGA-154281 at the highest soil moisture level evaluated, whereas those treated with metolachlor alone showed 70% injury. Metolachlor injury increased as soil moisture content increased. In the greenhouse, CGA-154281 did not protect any of the eight weed species tested against injury by 2.2 kg ha–1 metolachlor. In laboratory studies, CGA-154281 did not alter the absorption of 14C-metolachlor during an 8-h period. Qualitative comparison of the metabolism of metolachlor in the presence or absence of the protectant indicated that metolachlor was metabolized to a more polar metabolite, believed to be a glutathione conjugate. However, CGA-154281 significantly enhanced the rate of metabolism of metolachlor in three of the four hybrids tested. Metolachlor metabolism activity may already have been functioning at a maximum level in the unaffected hybrid.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. # ZEAMXmetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamideCGA-154281, 4-(dichloroacetyl)-3,4-dihydro-3-methyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazineCGA-180937, metolachlor + CGA-154281 (30:1)Antidotehybrid variabilitysafenerssoil moisture
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 78 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by the 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

1. Boldt, L. D. and Barrett, M. 1988. Factors in alachlor and metolachlor injury to corn seedlings. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 28:84.Google Scholar
2. Fuerst, E. P. and Gronwald, J. W. 1986. Induction of rapid metabolism of metolachlor in sorghum shoots by CGA-92194 and other antidotes. Weed Sci. 34:354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hatzios, K. K. 1984. Interactions between selected herbicides and protectants on corn. Weed Sci. 32:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Leavitt, J.R.C. and Penner, D. 1978. Protection of corn from acetanilide herbicide injury with the antidote R-25788. Weed Sci. 26:653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Leavitt, J.R.C. and Penner, D. 1979. In vitro conjugation of glutathione and other thiols with acetanilide herbicides and EPTC sulfoxide and the action of the herbicide antidote R-25788. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1988. Influence of the antidote CGA-154281 on the metabolism of metolachlor by acetanilide sensitive and tolerant hybrids. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:83–84.Google Scholar
7. Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1987. Variability in corn tolerance to acetanilide herbicides. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 42:53.Google Scholar
8. Viger, P. R. and Eberlein, C. V. 1986. Corn tolerance to acetanilide herbicides. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:7.Google Scholar
9. Winkle, M. E., Leavitt, J.R.C., and Burnside, O. C. 1980. Acetanilideantidote combinations for weed control in corn and sorghum. Weed Sci. 28:699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Zama, P. and Hatzios, K. K. 1986. Effects of CGA-92194 on the chemical reactivity of metolachlor with glutathione and metabolism of metolachlor in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 34:834–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar