Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T10:33:51.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CGA-362622 Antagonizes Annual Grass Control with Clethodim

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ian C. Burke ,
John W. Wilcut  and
Dunk Porterfield
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection, Cary, NC 27502
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate clethodim, CGA-362622, mixtures thereof, and sequential treatments for control of broadleaf signalgrass, fall panicum, goosegrass, and large crabgrass. In greenhouse experiments, clethodim alone provided 93 and 100% control of three- to four-leaf goosegrass at the low (105 g ai/ha) and high (140 g/ha) rates, respectively, whereas CGA-362622 did not control grasses in greenhouse or field experiments. Control of six- to eight-leaf goosegrass in the greenhouse with clethodim was 75% for the low rate and 89% for the high rate. Control of goosegrass in greenhouse studies was reduced at least 43 percentage points with CGA-362622 and clethodim at the high rate in mixture compared with control provided by clethodim at the high rate alone. When CGA-362622 and clethodim were applied in mixture in field studies, the effectiveness of the graminicide was decreased from > 97 to < 57% control for all annual grasses. Antagonism of clethodim activity was greater than that of the tank mixture when clethodim was applied 1 d after CGA-362622 on large crabgrass, goosegrass, and fall panicum. Clethodim applied 7 d before or after CGA-362622 controlled the four grass species as well as did clethodim applied alone. When CGA-362622 was applied to goosegrass alone, fresh weight accumulation stopped for a period of 4 d compared with untreated plants. Normal growth resumed after 4 d.

Keywords

CGA-362622, N-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium salt; clethodim; broadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash #3 BRAPP; fall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum (L.) # PANDI; goosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEIN; large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAAntagonismgrowth analysisorthogonal contrastsALS, acetolactase synthase (EC 4.1.3.18); DAT, days after treatment; POST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 749 - 754
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

Anonymous. 2001. Select 2EC®. In Crop Protection Reference. 17th ed. New York: C & P Press. pp. 2606–2614.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Shaw, D. R., and Street, J. E. 2000. Graminicide application timing influences red rice (Oryza sativa) control and seedhead reduction in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14: 176–181.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 2000. Report of the 1999 cotton weed loss committee. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 1455–1458.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15: 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Culpepper, A. S. 2001. Interaction of CGA-362622 and graminicides on annual grasses in cotton. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 41: 59.Google Scholar
Croon, K. A., Ketchersid, M. L., and Merkle, M. G. 1989. Effect of bentazon, imazaquin, and chlorimuron on the absorption and translocation of the methylester of haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 37: 645–650.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., and Brownie, C. 1999. Influence of bromoxynil on annual grass control by graminicides. Weed Sci. 47: 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 299–313.Google Scholar
Ferreira, K. L., Burton, J. D., and Coble, H. D. 1995. Physiological basis for antagonism of fluzifop-p by DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43: 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, K. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Effect of DPX-PE350 on the efficacy of graminicides. Weed Sci. 42: 222–226.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1992. Annual grass control in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with postemergence graminicides. Weed Technol. 6: 938–948.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. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Hicks, T. V., Wehtje, G. R., and Grey, T. L. 1998. The interaction of pyridate and 2,4-DB in peanut (Arachis hypogaea), Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 46: 284–288.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. and Coble, H. D. 1990. Compatibility of sethoxydim with five postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 128–133.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 53: 162.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1995. Influence of adjuvants on the antagonism of graminicides by broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 9: 741–747.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minton, B. W., Shaw, D. R., and Kurtz, M. E. 1989. Postemergence grass and broadleaf herbicide interactions for red rice (Oryza sativa) control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3: 329–334.Google Scholar
Myers, P. F. and Coble, H. D. 1992. Antagonism of graminicide activity on annual grass species by imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6: 333–338.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Singh, B. K. 1997. Acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors. In Roe, M. R., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Washington, DC: IOS Press. pp. 69–110.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Allen, R. L. 1996. Interaction of graminicides applied in combination with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10: 889–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Reynolds, D. B., and Blouin, D. C. 1995. Grass control in soybean (Glycine max) with graminicides applied alone and in mixtures. Weed Technol. 9: 68–72.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Porterfield, D. 2000. Weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton with CGA-362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 27.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. AG-417. pp. 69–111.Google Scholar