Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T06:59:26.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn Tolerance as Affected by the Timing of Foramsulfuron Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey A. Bunting ,
Christy L. Sprague  and
Dean E. Riechers
Jeffrey A. Bunting
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Dean E. Riechers
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sprague1@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two corn hybrids were evaluated to determine tolerance to foramsulfuron applications with and without the safener, isoxadifen-ethyl at five application timings. The corn hybrid N58D1 was more sensitive to foramsulfuron applications than N59Q9. Averaged across all application timings, the addition of isoxadifen-ethyl decreased corn injury of the more sensitive corn hybrid, N58D1. Foramsulfuron application timing had a significant effect on corn tolerance. The greatest corn injury generally occurred from foramsulfuron applications to V6 and V8 corn (visible collars). Foramsulfuron injury ranged between 9 and 37% from these two application timings, 7 d after treatment (DAT). By 21 DAT, corn generally recovered from foramsulfuron injury, and there were a few cases of reduced corn yield at the end of the season. Yield reductions and ear malformations were greatest at the Urbana location with both hybrids when foramsulfuron was applied to V12 corn. The addition of isoxadifen-ethyl alleviated ear malformations and increased corn yield from this application timing. Applications of foramsulfuron before V6 corn also were important in reducing corn injury and protecting yield. Therefore, when growers are using foramsulfuron for weed control, it will be important to select proper hybrids that are more tolerant as well as making applications before V6 corn.

Keywords

Foramsulfuroncorn, Zea mays L.Application timingcrop tolerancehybrid sensitivityALS, acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)DAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergenceWAP, weeks after planting

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 757 - 762
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

Anonymous. 2003a. Accent herbicide specimen label. Wilmington, DE: DuPont. Pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003b. Option herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropSciences. Pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. D. 1991. Weed Science. Principles and Practices. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 266–272.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C., O'Toole, B. M., and Andaloro, J. 1992. Effects of nicosulfuron on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:25–56.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1971. Protecting corn from herbicide injury by seed treatment. Weed Sci. 19:565–568.Google Scholar
Diebold, S., Robinson, D., Zandstra, J., O'Sullivan, J., and Sikkema, P. 2003. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to AE F130360. Weed Technol. 17:127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, K. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1995. Effect of simulated rainfall, insecticide formulation, and insecticide application method on the interaction between nicosulfuron and terbufos in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, K. E., Stoller, E. W., and Barrett, M. 1995. In vivo and in vitro inhibition of nicosulfuron metabolism by terbufos metabolites in maize. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 51:137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doohan, D. J., Ivany, J. A., White, R. P., and Thomas, W. 1998. Tolerance of early maturing corn (Zea mays) hybrids to DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 12:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Rosow, K. M., Geadelmann, J. L., and Openshaw, S. J. 1989. Differential tolerance of corn genotypes to DPX-M6316. Weed Sci. 37:651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, T. L. and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Influence of crop safeners on the interaction of primsulfuron and terbufos in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:168–171.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Ulrich, J. F. 1993. Response of corn (Zea mays) inbreds and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 41:508–516.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Ulrich, J. F. 1994. Response of maize (Zea mays) inbreds and hybrids to rimsulfuron. Pestic. Sci 40:187–191.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. 1997. Regulation of xenobiotic degrading enzymes with herbicide safeners. in Hatzios, K. K., ed. Regulation of Enzymatic Systems Detoxifying Xenobiotics in Plants. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Pp. 275–288.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. K. 1996. Nicosulfuron and primsulfuron selectivity in corn (Zea mays) and two annual grass weeds. Weed Sci. 44:219–223.Google Scholar
Hoffman, O. L. 1962. Chemical seed treatments as herbicide antidotes. Weeds 10:32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlefield, T. A., Colvin, D. L., Brecke, B. J., and McCarty, L. B. 1995. Time and rate of nicosulfuron application in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:34–36.Google Scholar
Milhomme, H. and Bastide, J. 1990. Uptake and phytoxicity of the herbicide metsulfuron methyl in corn root tissue in the presence of the safener 1,8-napthalic anhydride. Plant Physiol 93:730–738.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Wedberg, J. L., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., and Lueschen, W. E. 1994. Influence of corn rootworm insecticides on the response of field corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 8:289–295.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., and Burton, J. D. 1996. Safening influence of LAB 145 138 on nicosulfuron, terbufos, and bentazon interactions in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 44:339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sander, K. W. and Barrett, M. 1989. Differential imazaquin tolerance and behavior in selected corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 37:290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Enhancing the margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in Zea mays with antidotes. Weed Sci. 47:492–497.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., Elmes, M. J., Murphy, S. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1996. Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 10:288–294.Google Scholar
Widstrom, N. W. and Dowler, C. C. 1995. Sensitivity of selected field corn inbreds (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:779–782.Google Scholar