Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:56:26.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of hybrid varieties, application timing, and herbicide rate on field corn tolerance to tolpyralate plus atrazine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2019

Brendan A. Metzger ,
Nader Soltani Open the ORCID record for Nader Soltani [Opens in a new window] ,
Alan J. Raeder ,
David C. Hooker ,
Darren E. Robinson  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Brendan A. Metzger
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Alan J. Raeder
Affiliation:
Herbicide Field Development and Technical Service Representative, ISK Biosciences Inc., Concord, OH, USA
David C. Hooker
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Nader Soltani, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A wide margin of crop safety is a desirable trait of POST herbicides, and investigation of crop tolerance is a key step in evaluation of new herbicides. Six field experiments were conducted in Ontario, Canada, from 2017 to 2018 to examine the influence of corn (Zea mays L.) hybrid (DKC42-60RIB, DKC43-47RIB, P0094AM, and P9840AM), application rate (1X and 2X), and application timing (PRE, V1, V3, and V5) on the tolerance of field corn to tolpyralate, a new 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor, co-applied with atrazine. Two corn hybrids (DKC42-60RIB and DKC43-47RIB) exhibited slightly greater visible injury from tolpyralate + atrazine, applied POST, than P0094AM and P9840AM at 1 to 2 wk after application (WAA); hybrids responded similarly with respect to height, grain moisture, and yield. Applications of tolpyralate + atrazine at a 2X rate (80 + 2,000 g ai ha−1) induced greater injury (≤31.6%) than the field rate (40 + 1,000 g ha−1) (≤11.6%); the 2X rate applied at V1 or V3 decreased corn height and slightly increased grain moisture at harvest. On average, field rates resulted in marginally higher grain yields than 2X rates. Based on mixed-model multiple stepwise regression analysis, the air temperature at application, time of day, temperature range in the 24 h before application, and precipitation following application were useful predictor variables in estimating crop injury with tolpyralate + atrazine; however, additional environmental variables also affected crop injury. These results demonstrate the margin of corn tolerance with tolpyralate + atrazine, which provides a basis for optimization of application timing, rate, and corn hybrid selection to mitigate the risk of crop injury with this herbicide tank mixture.

Keywords

Timothy L. Grey, University of GeorgiaApplication timingcorn hybridheightHPPDratesensitivityyield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 67 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 475 - 484
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Abendroth, JA, Martin, AR, Roeth, FW (2006) Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol 20:267–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, H, Lange, G, Mueller, T, Rosinger, C, Willms, L, Almsick, AV (2013) 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors in combination with safeners: solutions for modern and sustainable agriculture. Angew Chem Int Ed 44: 9388–9398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Tolpyralate 400SC herbicide label. Concord, OH: ISK Biosciences Corporation. 16 pGoogle Scholar
BASF SE (2018) Dash® HC. BASF Agricultural Solutions UK. Online. https://www.agricentre.basf.co.uk/agroportal/uk/en/products/product_search/product_details_108213.html. Accessed: November 28, 2018Google Scholar
Bollman, SL, Kells, JJ, Penner, D (2008) Weed response to mesotrione and atrazine applied alone and in combination preemergence. Weed Technol 20:903–907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowley, SR (2015) Variance analyses – Gaussian. Page 57 in Bowley, SR. A Hitchhiker's Guide to Statistics in Biology – Generalized Linear Mixed Model Edition. Kincardine, ON: Plants et al., Inc.Google Scholar
Budd, CM, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Hooker, DC, Miller, RT, Sikkema, PH (2017) Efficacy of saflufenacil for control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) as affected by height, density and time of day. Weed Sci 65:275–284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, JA, Sprague, CL, Riechers, DE (2004) Corn tolerance as affected by the timing of foramsulfuron applications. Weed Technol 18:757–762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, E, Williams, MM II, Boydston, RA, Huber, JL, Huber, SC, Pataky, JK (2014) Photosystem II-inhibitors play a limited role in sweet corn response to 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicides. Agron J 106:1317–1323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coligado, MC, Brown, DM (1975) Response of corn (Zea mays L.) in the pre-tassel initiation period to temperature and photoperiod. Agric Meteorol 14:357–367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmunds, AJF, Morris, JA (2012) Triketones. Pages 235–262 in Kramer, W, Schirmer, U, Jeschke, P, Witschel, M, eds. Modern Crop Protection Compounds. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Google Scholar
Gitsopoulos, TK, Melidis, V, Evgenidis, G (2010) Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to post-emergence applications of topramezone. Crop Prot 29:1091–1093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K, Ehrhardt, T (2007) On the mechanism of action and selectivity of the corn herbicide topramezone: a new inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Pest Manag Sci 63:429–439 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkes, T (2012) Herbicides with bleaching properties. Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD): the herbicide target. Pages 225–232 in Kramer, W, Schirmer, U, Jeschke, P, Witschel, M, eds. Modern Crop Protection Compounds. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Google Scholar
Hess, FD (2000) Light-dependent herbicides: an overview. Weed Sci 48:160–170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, BC, Young, BG (2002) Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci 50:157–161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, BC, Young, BG, Matthews, JL (2002) Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol 16:414–420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kakidani, H, Hirai, K (2003) Three-dimensional modeling of plant 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase, a molecular target of triketone-type herbicides. J Pestic Sci 28:409–415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubbers, MD, Stahlman, PW, Al-Khatib, K (2007) Fluroxypyr efficacy is affected by relative humidity and soil moisture. Weed Sci 55:260–263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, BA, Soltani, N, Raeder, AJ, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2018a) Tolpyralate efficacy: Part 1. Biologically effective dose of tolpyralate for control of annual grass and broadleaf weeds in corn. Weed Technol 32:698–706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, MD, Pataky, JK, Williams, MM II (2010) Genetic factors influencing the adverse effects of mesotrione and nicosulfuron on sweet corn yield. Agron J 102:1138–1144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G, Bartlett, DW, Fraser, TE, Hawkes, TR, Holt, DC, Townson, JK, Wichert, RA (2001) Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest Manag Sci 57:120–128 3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monsanto (2018) Dekalb® Corn Hybrid Products. DKC42-60RIB and DKC43-47RIB. https://www.dekalb.ca/corn/hybrids. Accessed: November 30, 2018.Google Scholar
Müller, F, Appleby, AP (2012) Weed control, 1. Fundamentals. Pages 173–208 in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. 6th ed. Vol. 39. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2018) Grain Corn. Page 6 in 2019 Ontario Field Crop Budgets: Publication 60. https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/pub60.pdf Accessed: November 25 2018Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, J, Zandstra, J, Sikkema, PH (2002) Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol 16:421–425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, A, Trolove, MR, James, TK (2013) Efficacy and crop selectivity of topramezone for post-emergence weed control in maize. Pages 470–476 in Proceedings of the 24th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. Bandung, Indonesia: Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Ramsey, RJL, Stephenson, GR, Hall, JC (2002) Effect of relative humidity on the uptake, translocation, and efficacy of glufosinate ammonium in wild oat. Pest Biochem Physiol 73:1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, RL, Coble, HD (1981) Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of aciflourfen. Weed Sci 29:480–485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, JA (1965) The penetration of growth regulators into leaves. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 16:1–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skuterud, R, Bjugstad, N, Tyldum, A, Tørresen, KS (1998) Effect of herbicides applied at different times of the day. Crop Prot 17:41–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Sikkema, PH, Zandstra, J, O’Sullivan, J, Robinson, DE (2007) Response of eight sweet corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids to topramezone. HortScience 42:110–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, CL, Penner, D, Kells, JJ (1999) Enhancing the margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in Zea mays with antidotes. Weed Sci 47:492–497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Time of day impacts postemergence weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:346–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopps, GJ, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2013) The effect of time of day on the activity of postemergence soybean herbicides. Weed Technol 27:690–695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonks, D, Grove, M, Kikugawa, H, Parks, M, Nagayama, S, Tsukamoto, M (2015) Tolpyralate: an overview of performance for weed control in US corn. Proceedings of the Weed Science Society of America Annual Meeting. Lexington, KY, February 9–12, 2015Google Scholar
Vollmer, KM, VanGessel, MJ, Johnson, QR, Scott, BA (2017) Relative safety of preemergence corn herbicides applied to coarse-textured soil. Weed Technol 31:356–363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM II, Pataky, JK (2010) Factors affecting differential sensitivity of sweet corn to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 58:289–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J, Jaeck, O, Menegat, A, Zhang, Z, Gerhards, R, Hanwen, N (2013) The mechanism of methylated seed oil on enhancing biological efficacy of topramezone on weeds. PLoS ONE 8:1–9 Google ScholarPubMed