Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:45:10.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pyroxasulfone with and without Sulfentrazone in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian L. S. Olson ,
Richard K. Zollinger ,
Curtis R. Thompson ,
Dallas E. Peterson ,
Brian Jenks ,
Mike Moechnig  and
Phillip W. Stahlman
Brian L. S. Olson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 67701
Richard K. Zollinger
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108
Curtis R. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Brian Jenks
Affiliation:
North Central Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University, Minot, ND 58701
Mike Moechnig
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS 67601
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pyroxasulfone (KIH-485) is a seedling growth-inhibiting herbicide developed by Kumiai America that has the potential to control weeds in sunflower. However, little is known about how this herbicide will interact with various soil types and environments when combined with sulfentrazone. The objective of this research was to evaluate sunflower injury and weed control with pyroxasulfone applied with and without sulfentrazone across the Great Plains sunflower production area. A multisite study was initiated in spring 2007 to evaluate sunflower response to pyroxasulfone applied PRE at 0, 167, 208, or 333 g ai ha−1. In 2008, pyroxasulfone was applied alone and in tank mixture with sulfentrazone. In 2007, no sunflower injury was observed with any rate of pyroxasulfone at any location except Highmore, SD, where sunflower injury was 17%, 4 wk after treatment (WAT) with 333 g ha−1. In 2008, sunflower injury ranged from 0 to 4% for all treatments. Adding sulfentrazone did not increase injury. Sunflower yield was only reduced in treatments in which weeds were not effectively controlled. These treatments included the untreated control and pyroxasulfone at 167 g ha−1. Sunflower yield did not differ among the other treatments of pyroxasulfone or sulfentrazone applied alone or in combination. The addition of sulfentrazone to pyroxasulfone improved control of foxtail barley, prostrate pigweed, wild buckwheat, Palmer amaranth, and marshelder, but not large crabgrass or green foxtail. The combination of pyroxasulfone and sulfentrazone did not reduce control of any of the weeds evaluated.

El pyroxasulfone (KIH-485) es un herbicida inhibidor del crecimiento de plántulas desarrollado por Kumiai América, que tiene el potencial para el control de maleza en cultivo del girasol. Sin embargo, se sabe poco acerca de cómo este herbicida interactúa con varios tipos de suelo y ambientes cuando se combina con sulfentrazone. El objetivo de esta investigación fue evaluar el daño al girasol y el control de maleza con pyroxasulfone aplicado con y sin sulfentrazone a lo largo del área de producción del girasol en los Great Plains, de Norteamérica. En la primavera de 2007 se inició un estudio en múltiples sitios para evaluar la respuesta de girasol a la aplicación PRE de pyroxasulfone a 0, 167, 208, o 333 g ia ha−1. En 2008, se aplicó pyroxasulfone solo y en mezclas con sulfentrazone. En 2007, no se observó daño alguno al girasol a cualquier dosis de pyroxasulfone en ninguna de los sitios, excepto en Highmore, SD, donde el daño fue 17%, 4 semanas después del tratamiento (WAT) con 333 g ha−1. En 2008, el daño al girasol varió de 0 a 4% para todos los tratamientos. La adición de sulfentrazone no incrementó el daño. El rendimiento del girasol se redujo solamente en los tratamientos donde la maleza no se controló con efectividad. Estos tratamientos incluyeron el testigo no tratado y pyroxasulfone a 167 g ha−1. No hubo diferencia en el rendimiento del girasol entre los otros tratamientos de pyroxasulfone o sulfentrazone aplicado solo o en combinación. La adición de sulfentrazone a pyroxasulfone mejoró el control de Hordeum jubatum, Amaranthus blitoides, Polygonum convolvulus, Amaranthus palmeri e Iva xanthifolia pero no el de Digitaria sanguinalis o Setaria viridis. La combinación de pyroxasulfone y sulfentrazone no redujo el control de ninguna maleza evaluada.

Keywords

Pyroxasulfone (KIH-485)sulfentrazonefoxtail barley, Hordeum jubatum L. HORJUgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAmarshelder, Iva xanthifolia Nutt. IVAXAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAprostrate pigweed, Amaranthus blitoides S. Wats AMABLwild buckwheat, Polygonum convolvulus L. POLCOsunflower, Helianthus annuus L.PRE herbicidescrop injuryenvironmentherbicides
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 217 - 221
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, . 2009a. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. National: Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp. Accessed: June 17, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009b. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. National: Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/act_dsp_usage_multiple.cfm. Accessed: June 17, 2009.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R., Dexter, A. G., and Miller, S. D. 1990. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) interference in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Technol 4:52–56.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Frihauf, J. C. 2006. KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no-tillage corn. Weed Technol 20:622–626.Google Scholar
Gregory, L. S., Porpiglia, P. J., and Chandler, J. M. 2005. Efficacy of KIH-485 on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and selected broadleaf weeds in corn. Weed Technol 19:866–869.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1971. Effect of weed competition on sunflowers. Weed Sci 4:378–380.Google Scholar
King, S. R. and Garcia, J. O. 2008. Annual broadleaf control with KIH-485 in glyphosate-resistant furrow irrigated corn. Weed Technol 22:420–424.Google Scholar
King, S. R., Ritter, R. L., Hagood, E. S. Jr., and Menbere, H. 2007. Control of acetolactate synthesis-resistant shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) in field corn with KIH-485. Weed Technol 21:578–582.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Datta, A., Scott, J., and Porpiglia, P. J. 2009. Dose–response curves of KIH-485 for preemergence weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:34–39.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Schlegel, A. J., and Gold, G. L. 2000. Effectiveness of sulfentrazone for weed control in no-till sunflower. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Proc 53:88–89.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D. and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Weed control in sunflower with sulfentrazone. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep 59:63–64.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Ries, J. L. 2007. Sunflower response to KIH-485. Natl. Sunflower Assoc. Res. Forum. http://www.sunflowernsa.com/research/research-workshop/documents/Zollinger_KIH_07.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2009.Google Scholar