Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:14:52.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application Placement and Relative Humidity Affects Smooth Crabgrass and Tall Fescue Response to Mesotrione

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew J. R. Goddard ,
John B. Willis  and
Shawn D. Askew
Matthew J. R. Goddard
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 435 Old Glade Road, Virginia Tech Box 0330, Blacksburg, VA 24060-0330
John B. Willis
Affiliation:
Monsanto Company, 1305 Sanders Road, Troy, OH 45373
Shawn D. Askew*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 435 Old Glade Road, Virginia Tech Box 0330, Blacksburg, VA 24060-0330
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much research has been conducted on mesotrione activity on crops and weeds, but information is lacking in regards to the relative contribution of soil and foliar absorption of mesotrione. Three experiments conducted at Virginia Tech's Glade Road Research Facility in Blacksburg, VA, evaluated the effects of 50 and 90% relative humidity (RH) on the activity of mesotrione applied to foliage, soil, and soil plus foliage. Tall fescue injury ranged from 0 to 21% and was significant in 6 of 20 comparisons. Three of these injury events were caused by soil plus foliar applications, which were always more injurious than foliar only applications, which were more injurious than soil-only applications. Both application placement and RH significantly influenced smooth crabgrass responses to mesotrione. Smooth crabgrass phytotoxicity was lowest when mesotrione was applied only to foliage and highest when mesotrione was applied to soil and foliage. Increasing RH from 50 to 90% caused a 4- to 18-fold increase in plant phytotoxicity when mesotrione was applied only to foliage. By dissecting the plant canopy, it was noted at 14 d after treatment, when averaged over RH, that white leaves comprise 16% of leaves when only foliage was treated and 55 and 62% when applied to soil plus foliage and soil only, respectively. Furthermore, white tissue was found predominately in the two youngest leaves when mesotrione was applied to soil or both soil and foliage, but in older leaves when applied only to foliage. Data indicate mesotrione entering plants through soil travels quickly to growing points and has an equal or greater effect on plant phytotoxicity than foliar-absorbed mesotrione. In addition, foliar-absorbed mesotrione appears to increase in plants significantly with increasing RH, but does not move rapidly to growing points.

Keywords

Mesotrionesmooth crabgrass, Digitaria ischaemum Schreb. ex Muhl. DIGIStall fescue, Schedonorus phoenix (Scop.) Holub FESAR, also Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. DarbyshireBleaching herbicidesphotochemical efficiencyrelative humiditytriketone herbicidesturfgrass injury
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 67 - 72
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

Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993. The influence of temperature and relative humidity and the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139–147.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008a. Callisto® herbicide label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. 33.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008b. Tenacity® herbicide label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. 14.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Mesotrione combinations in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 17:111–116.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Goddard, M. J., and Willis, J. B. 2007. Methods to assess environmental influence on turfgrass response to mesotrione. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:87.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. J., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Fertilizer rate and response of weeds to herbicides. Weed Sci. 52:291–296.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38. in. N. D. Camper, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P. and Vaughn, K. C. 1990. Mechanisms of paraquat resistance. Weed Technol. 4:150–156.Google Scholar
Goddard, M., Willis, J. B., and Askew, S. D. 2007b. Pyridine herbicides reduce antichromatic effects of mesotrione in turfgrass. Pages 8. in. Abstracts of the 2007 International Annual Meetings. New Orleans, LA American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Goddard, M. J., Ricker, D. B., and Askew, S. D. 2007. Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) physiological and visual response to mesotrione as influenced by temperature. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 47:Abstract 218.Google Scholar
Hull, H. M. 1970. Leaves structure as related to absorption of pesticides and other compounds. Pages 1–155. in Gunther, F. A. and Gunther, J. D. Residue Reviews. Volume 31. New York Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 2002. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci. 50:157–161.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., and Holman, C. S. 1999. Mesotrione programs. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 56:225–226.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1977. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on the toxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 25:448–451.Google Scholar
Kells, J. J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci. 32:143–149.Google Scholar
Lamoureux, G. L. and Rusness, D. G. 1995. Quinclorac absorption, translocation, metabolism, and toxicity in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 53:210–226.Google Scholar
McCurdy, J., McElroy, J. S., and Breeden, G. 2007. Soil vs. foliar absorption of mesotrione by yellow nutsedge and large crabgrass. Pages 7. in. Abstracts of the 2007 International Annual Meetings. New Orleans, LA American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
McCurdy, J. D., McElroy, J. S., Kopsell, D. A., and Sams, C. E. 2009. Mesotrione control and pigment concentration of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) under varying environmental conditions. Pest Manag. Sci. 65:640–644.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Azlin, W. R. 1978. Effects of environment on the toxicity of glyphosate to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:605–608.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G. D., 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
Mithila, J., Swanton, C. J., Blackshaw, R. E., Cathcart, R. J., and Hall, J. C. 2008. Physiological basis for reduced glyphosate efficacy on weeds grown under low soil nitrogen. Weed Sci. 56:12–17.Google Scholar
Molin, W. T. and Khan, R. A. 1997. Mitotic disrupter herbicides: recent advances and opportunities. Pages 143–158. in Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam IOS Press.Google Scholar
Ricker, D. B. 2006. Elucidating Influence of Temperature and Environmental Stress on Turfgrass Response to Mesotrione and Evaluation of Potential Synergistic Admixtures to Improve Mesotrione Efficacy. . Blacksburg, VA Virginia Tech University. 68.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975a. Rapid inactivation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci. 23:224–228.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975b. Adsorption, mobility, and microbial degradation of glyphosate in the soil. Weed Sci. 23:229–234.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. Jr. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Foliar and root absorption of atrazine applied postemergence to giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 17:251–256.Google Scholar
Willis, J. B. and Askew, S. D. 2007. Use of triclopyr to reduce antichromatic effects of mesotrione in turfgrass. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:86.Google Scholar
Willis, J. B., Goddard, M. J., and Askew, S. D. 2008. Effects of dithiopyr and triclopyr on antichromatic effects of mesotrione on turfgrass and selected weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 62:85.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1984. Toxicity and translocation of sethoxydim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) as affected by environment. Weed Sci. 32:20–24.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1981. Effect of environment on the translocation and toxicity of acifluorfen to showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 29:397–401.Google Scholar
Xu, Q., Huang, B., and Wang, Z. 2002. Photosynthetic responses of creeping bentgrass to reduced root-zone temperatures at supraoptimal air temperature. Hort. Sci. 127:754–758.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Johnson, B. C., and Matthews, J. L. 1999. Preemergence and sequential weed control with mesotrione in conventional corn. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc., Res. Rep. 56:226–227.Google Scholar