Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:50:49.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors Affecting the Activity of Thifensulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. C. Zhao
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville, MD 20705
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville, MD 20705
C. Benjamin Coffman
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville, MD 20705

Abstract

The influence of various factors on the tolerance of corn and selected weed species to thifensulfuron was studied in greenhouse experiments. Corn fresh weight was reduced by postemergence application of thifensulfuron when applied at 180 g ai ha−1 without surfactant or at 18 g ha−1 with a nonionic surfactant. Corn was more susceptible to root exposure whereas velvetleaf was more susceptible to foliar exposure. Velvetleaf was most susceptible when plants were young, when a nonionic surfactant was added, and at 20 rather than 30 C. Simulated rainfall 8 h after application reduced velvetleaf injury by thifensulfuron at 18 g ha−1 without surfactant; however, with addition of a nonionic surfactant, velvetleaf injury was reduced only if rainfall occurred less than 2 h after application. Soil moisture level did not affect velvetleaf susceptibility.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
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. Ambach, R. M., Toole, B. M., Zadorozny, S. A., Johnson, K. D., Ulrich, T. S., Gorrell, R. M., and Schehl, S. E. 1984. DPX-M6316: A new herbicide for use in cereals. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:120.Google Scholar
2. Blair, A. M. and Martin, T. D. 1988. A review of the activity, fate and mode of action of sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 22:195219.Google Scholar
3. Blankendaal, M., Hodgson, R. H., Davis, D. G., Hoerauf, R. A., and Shirnabukuro, R. H. 1972. Growing plants without soil for experimental use. Misc. Publ. No. 1251. Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. 17 pp.Google Scholar
4. Bubenzer, G. D. 1979. Inventory of rainfall simulators. Proc. Rainfall Simulator Workshop, Tucson, AZ. March 7–9. Pages 120130.Google Scholar
5. Eberlein, C. V. and Miller, T. L. 1989. Corn (Zea mays) tolerance and weed control with thiameturon. Weed Technol. 3:255260.Google Scholar
6. Edmund, R. M. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Factors affecting postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025: spray volume, growth stage, and soil-applied alachlor and vernolate. Weed Sci. 35:216223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Edmund, R. M. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Effects of rainfall and temperature on postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025. Weed Sci. 35:231236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Forney, D. R., Amuti, K. S., Claus, J. S., Long, J. D., Green, J. M., Saari, L. L., Brown, H. M., and Sebastian, S. 1989. DPX-M6316, a new postemergence soybean herbicide: Activity, selectivity, and soil residual considerations. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 29:17.Google Scholar
9. Kmetz, K. 1986. DPX-M6316–a new postemergence herbicide for cereals. Proc. Can. Pest Manage. Soc. 32:711.Google Scholar
10. Nalewaja, J. D. and Adamczewski, K. A. 1988. Thiameturon phytotoxicity to kochia. Weed Sci. 36:296300.Google Scholar
11. Nalewaja, J. D. and Woznica, Z. 1985. Environment and chlorsulfuron phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 33:395399.Google Scholar
12. Sionis, S. D., Drobny, H. G., Lefebvre, P., and Upstone, M. E. 1985. DPX-M6316–a new sulfonylurea cereal herbicide. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds 1:4954.Google Scholar