Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T09:39:22.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mesotrione, Acetochlor, and Atrazine for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory R. Armel ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Robert J. Richardson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Gregory R. Armel
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
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hwilson@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to investigate weed control and crop safety with preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) applications of mesotrione alone and in tank mixtures with acetochlor and atrazine. Corn injury was less than 4% with all mesotrione treatments in 1999 and 2001, but it was 8 to 20% in 2000, when rainfall was 3.1 cm 7 d after PRE applications. Mesotrione PRE at 0.16 and 0.24 kg ai/ha did not adequately control most broadleaf weeds or giant foxtail. Tank mixtures of mesotrione plus acetochlor controlled smooth pigweed and giant foxtail but did not adequately control common ragweed, common lambsquarters, or morningglory species. Control by tank mixtures of mesotrione plus atrazine at 0.56 kg ai/ha was frequently low and varied with rainfall after PRE applications. All weed species were controlled 80% or more by mesotrione plus acetochlor PRE or atrazine plus acetochlor PRE followed by mesotrione POST at 0.11 kg/ha.

Keywords

Acetochloratrazinemesotrionecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAmorningglory species, Ipomoea spp. # IPOSSsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHcorn, Zea mays LHPPD-inhibiting herbicidestriketone herbicidesCOC, crop oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentfb, followed byPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrateWAT, weeks after treatment

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 284 - 290
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 20–23.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001a. Crop Production and Agricultural Chemical Usage in Field Crops. Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS, and USDA: Web page: http://www.usda.gov/nass/. Accessed: September 20, 2001.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Callisto™ herbicide label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2000. Control of two perennial weeds with ZA 1296. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 47–48.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. R., and Hines, T. E. 2001. ZA 1296 combinations for control of grasses in corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41: 84.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H. and Taylor, S. E. 2000. Postemergence performance of mesotrione in weed control programs. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 81.Google Scholar
Beraud, M., Claument, J., and Montury, A. 1993. ICIA 0051, a new herbicide for control of annual weeds in maize. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 51–56.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil Test Recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 834. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S., Swann, C. W., Wilson, H. P., Ritter, R. L., Majek, B. A., Curran, W. S., and Chandran, R. 2001. Pest Management Guide: Field Crops. Grain Crops, Soybeans and Forages. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 456-016. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2002. Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weed Science Society of America: Web page: http://www.weedscience.org/.Google Scholar
Jablonkai, I. and Hatzios, K. K. 1994. Microsomal oxidation of the herbicides EPTC and acetochlor and of the safener MG-191 in maize. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 48: 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 1999. Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of ZA 1296 on weed control and corn response. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 67.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 2000. Effect of postemergence rate and timing of ZA 1296. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 9.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37: 239–249.Google Scholar
Lackey, B. A., Beckett, T. H., Dennis, S., and Brownell, K. 1999. ZA 1296: a versatile preemergence and postemergence broadleaf herbicide for corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 116.Google Scholar
Menbere, H. and Ritter, R. L. 2001. Preemergence and postemergence control of triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 19.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., Bartlett, D. W., Fraser, T. E., Hawkes, T. R., Holt, D. C., Townson, J. K., and Wichert, R. A. 2001. Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 57: 120–128.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. 2000. ZA 1296: a new mode of action for weed control in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 1.Google Scholar
Norris, S. R., Shen, X., and DellaPenna, D. 1998. Complementation of the arabidopsis pds1 mutant with the gene encoding p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Plant Physiol. 117: 1317–1323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohmes, G. A., Kendig, J. A., Barham, R. L., and Ezell, P. M. 2000. Efficacy of ZA 1296 in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 225.Google Scholar
Pallett, K. E., Little, J. P., Sheekey, M., and Veerasekaran, P. 1998. The mode of action of isoxaflutole. I. Physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 62: 113–124.Google Scholar
Simmons, F. W., Parker, D. C., and Wax, L. M. 2000. Mesotrione efficacy response to rainfall and soil water. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 103.Google Scholar
Sutton, P. B., Foxon, G. A., Beraud, J. M., Anderdon, J., and Wichert, R. 1999. Integrated weed management systems for maize using mesotrione, nicosulfuron, and acetochlor. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 225–230.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viviani, F., Little, J. P., and Pallett, K. E. 1998. The mode of action of isoxaflutole. II. Characterization of the inhibition of carrot 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase by the diketonitrile derivative of RPA 201772. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 62: 125–134.Google Scholar
Vizantinopoulos, S. and Katranis, N. 1998. Weed management of Amaranthus spp. in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12: 145–150.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A. and Pastushok, G. 2000. Mesotrione—weed control with different adjuvant systems. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 81.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A. and Hanson, G. E. 1995. Effect of rainfall on glyphosate plus 2,4-D performance on Echinochloa crus-galli . Weed Sci. 43: 666–670.Google Scholar