Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:21:45.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Response of Corn Hybrids and Inbreds to Metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Loston Rowe ,
Elmer Rossman  and
Donald Penner
Loston Rowe
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Elmer Rossman
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the response of 200 corn hybrids and 29 inbreds to metolachlor applied at 4.5 kg ai ha−1. Both hybrids and inbreds varied in their response to the herbicide. The distribution of injury revealed a normal distribution curve with most of the hybrids having a midlevel of tolerance. Some hybrids were very tolerant, while others were quite sensitive. Laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate absorption and metabolism of 14C-metolachlor for a subset of tolerant and sensitive hybrids. There was no observed difference in the product of metolachlor metabolism in the tolerant and sensitive hybrids. The observed variability in metolachlor tolerance among hybrids appeared due to differences in the amount of metolachlor absorption and metabolism and differences at the site of metolachlor action. The tolerant ‘Great Lakes 584’ hybrid absorbed significantly less 14C-metolachlor than did the sensitive ‘Pioneer 3744’, while the tolerant ‘Cargill 7567’ metabolized significantly faster more 14C-metolachlor than the other hybrids. The internal concentrations of available 14C-metolachlor were the same for the tolerant Cargill 7567 and the sensitive ‘Northrup King 9283’ after 8 h, indicating differences at the site of action of metolachlor for these two hybrids.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.metolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl) - N -(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamideTolerancenormal distribution curvemidlevel toleranceinternal concentration
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 1990 , pp. 563 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the 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

1. Andersen, R. N. 1964. Differential response of corn inbreds to simazine and atrazine. Weeds 12:60–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Francis, T. R. and Hamill, A. S. 1980. Inheritance of maize seedling tolerance to alachlor. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1045–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Fuerst, E. P. and Gronwald, J. W. 1986. Induction of rapid metabolism of metolachlor in sorghum shoots by CGA-92194 and other antidotes. Weed Sci. 34:354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Harcastle, J. S. and Krueger, W. A. 1974. Differences in tolerance of metribuzin by varieties of soybean. Weed Res. 14:181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Leavitt, J.R.C. and Penner, D. 1979. In vitro conjugation of glutathione and other thiols with acetanilide herbicides and EPTC sulfoxide and the action of the herbicide antidote R-25788. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Narsaiah, D. B. and Harvey, R. C. 1977. Differential responses of corn inbreds and hybrids to alachlor. Crop Sci. 17:657–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Niccum, C. E. 1985. Variations in inbred and varietal tolerance of corn to butylate, alachlor, and propachlor. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 25:33–35.Google Scholar
8. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Response of corn cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci. 36:625–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Roggenbuck, F. C. and Penner, D. 1987. Factors influencing corn tolerance to trifluralin. Weed Sci. 35:89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Sagaral, E. G. and Foy, C. L. 1982. Response of several corn cultivars and weed species to EPTC with and without the antidote R-25788. Weed Sci. 30:64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Zama, P. and Hatzios, K. K. 1986. Effects of CGA-92194 on the chemical reactivity of metolachlor with glutathione and metabolism of metolachlor in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 34:834–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar