Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T14:37:19.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mesotrione plus atrazine mixtures for control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory R. Armel ,
Gavin J. Hall ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Nasreen Cullen
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Gavin J. Hall
Affiliation:
Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Syngenta Crop Protection, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, UK
Nasreen Cullen
Affiliation:
Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Syngenta Crop Protection, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine if mesotrione alone or in mixtures with low rates of atrazine would control Canada thistle. In the field, mesotrione applied alone did not adequately control Canada thistle, although smaller plants in the rosette stage of growth were more susceptible than plants in the bolting stage. A mixture of mesotrione at 105 g ai ha−1 and atrazine at 280 g ai ha−1 improved control of Canada thistle over that with mesotrione alone. In the greenhouse, mixtures of mesotrione plus atrazine at 560 g ha−1 reduced Canada thistle regrowth more than mesotrione alone or mesotrione plus 280 g ha−1 atrazine. Mesotrione plus atrazine mixtures increased the rate of tissue necrosis compared with the slower development of bleaching symptoms normally associated with mesotrione alone. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-mesotrione in Canada thistle were generally slow, and results did not explain the increased control associated with mesotrione plus atrazine mixtures. However, higher levels of absorption and translocation and reduced root metabolism of mesotrione in rosette stage plants compared with bolting plants may explain the greater susceptibility to mesotrione in the rosette stage. The changes in symptomology and increased control with mixtures of mesotrione and atrazine were likely due to the interrelationship between the modes of action of these herbicides.

Keywords

AtrazinemesotrioneCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. CIRARBleaching herbicidesherbicide uptakeherbicide translocationperennial weedstriketone herbicides
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 202 - 211
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

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Callisto Herbicide Label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. 11 p.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2000a. 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., and Hines, T. E. 2000b. Response of two perennial weeds to ZA 1296. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 40:110–111.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
Bartlett, D. W. and Hall, G. J. 2000. Mesotrione: uptake, translocation, and metabolism in corn compared to weeds. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 55:65–66.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
Bradley, K. W., Davis, P., King, S. R., and Hagood, E. S. 2000. Trumpetcreeper, honeyvine milkweed, and hemp dogbane control with postemergence corn herbicides. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 54:59.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1988. Clopyralid effects on shoot emergence, root biomass, and secondary shoot regrowth potential of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 36:804–809.Google Scholar
Elakkad, M. A. and Behrens, R. 1976. Factors in Canada thistle competition with corn and soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 31:141–142.Google Scholar
Hess, J. L. 1993. Vitamin E, α-tocopherol. Pages 111–134 in Alscher, R. and Hess, J. eds. Antioxidants in Higher Plants. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. M. 1971. Canada Thistle and Its Control. Washington, DC: U.S. Dep. Agric. Leaflet 52. 8 p.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1996. Control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with glyphosate applied at the bud vs. rosette stage. Weed Sci 44:934–938.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. and Smith, L. W. 1972. Environment and herbicide effects on Canada thistle ecotypes. Weed Sci 20:163–167.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Jung, S., Hwang, I. T., and Cho, K. Y. 1999. Characteristics of chlorophyll a fluorescence induction in cucumber cotyledons treated with diuron, norflurazon, and sulcotrione. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 65:73–81.Google Scholar
Miller, B. R. and Lym, R. G. 1998. Using the rosette technique for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in row crops. Weed Technol 12:699–706.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
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.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A. and Kossatz, V. C. 1984. Control of Canada thistle and tolerance of barley to 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid. Can. J. Plant Sci 64:215–217.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. C., Weiss, G. M., and Dew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci 62:725–731.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
Parochetti, J. V. 1974. Canada thistle control with atrazine. Weed Sci 22:28–31.Google Scholar
Robertson, M. M. and Kirkwood, R. C. 1970. The mode of action of foliage applied translocated herbicides with particular reference to the phenoxy-acid compounds. II. The mechanism and factors influencing translocation, metabolism and biochemical inhibition. Weed Res 10:94–120.Google Scholar
Sims, J. T. and Gartley, K. L. 1996. Nutrient Management Handbook for Delaware. University of Delaware, Newark College of Agricultural Science Cooperative Bull. 59.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
Trebst, A. 1996. The molecular basis of plant resistance to photosystem II herbicides. Pages 44–49 in Molecular Genetics and Evolution of Pesticide Resistance. American Chemical Society Symposium Series. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Trebst, A., Depka, B., and Holländer-Czytko, H. 2002. A specific role for tocopherol and of chemical singlet oxygen quenchers in the maintenance of photosystem II structure and function in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii . FEBS Lett 516:156–160.Google Scholar
Wise, R. R. and Cook, W. B. 1998. Development of ultrastructural damage to chloroplasts in a plastoquinone-deficient mutant of maize. Environ. Exp. Bot 40:221–228.Google Scholar