Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:04:11.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Corn (Zea mays) Cultivars to Imazaquin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Karen A. Renner ,
William F. Meggitt  and
Donald Penner
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sciences. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
William F. Meggitt
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sciences. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sciences. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corn cultivars differed in their response to imazaquin applied from 35 to 280 g ai/ha, as measured by shoot length. No cultivar was tolerant to all imazaquin application rates. There was less corn injury from imazaquin in studies conducted during the second and third years of research than in the first year. Preplant-incorporated applications caused significantly more injury than preemergence applications in two out of three studies. Lack of rainfall in 1985 and 1987 may have limited movement of imazaquin in the soil profile, which resulted in preemergence applications of imazaquin, causing very little corn injury. In all years of research, 35 g/ha of imazaquin incorporated in the top 6 cm of the soil profile resulted in 17 to 33% reduction in corn height 28 days after planting, when averaged across all the corn cultivars. Significant yield reductions (LSD = 0.10) of 45, 19, and 18% occurred in 1987 from preplantincorporated applications of 140, 70, and 35 g/ha, respectively, which had reduced corn height 46, 23, and 19%, respectively, when measured 28 days after planting.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4- methyl-4- (1 - methylethyl) -5 - oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl] - 3 - quinolinecarboxylic acidCultivar tolerancecorn hybrid injury
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , September 1988 , pp. 625 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. and Geadelmann, J. L. 1982. The effect of parentage on the control of volunteer corn (Zea mays) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anderson, P. C. and Hibbard, K. A. 1985. Evidence for the interaction of an imidazolinone herbicide with leucine, valine, and isoleucine metabolism. Weed Sci. 33:479–483.Google Scholar
3. Burns, R. G. 1975. Factors affecting pesticide loss from soil. Pages 103–141 in Paul, E. A. and McLoren, A. D., eds. Soil Biochemistry. Vol. 4. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
4. Burt, G. W. 1976. Factors affecting thiocarbamate injury to corn. II. Soil incorporation, seed placement, cultivar, leaching, and breakdown. Weed Sci. 24:326–330.Google Scholar
5. Burt, G. W. and Akinsorotan, A. O. 1976. Factors affecting thiocarbamate injury to corn. I. Temperature and soil moisture. Weed Sci. 24:319–321.Google Scholar
6. Eastin, E. F., Palmer, R. D., and Grogan, C. O. 1964. Mode of action of atrazine and simazine in susceptible and resistant lines of corn. Weed Sci. 12:49–53.Google Scholar
7. Francis, T. R. and Hamill, A. S. 1980. Inheritance of maize seedling tolerance to alachlor. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1045–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hamaker, J. W. and Goring, C.A.I. 1976. Turnover of pesticide residues in soil. Pages 219–243 in Kaufman, D. D., Still, G. G., Paulson, C. D., and Bandal, S. K., eds. Bound and Conjugated Residues. ACS Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 29, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hurle, K. and Walker, A. 1980. Persistence and its prediction. Pages 84–122 in Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions between Herbicides and the Soil. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
10. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Roggenbuck, F. C. and Penner, D. 1987. Factors influencing corn (Zea mays) tolerance to trifluralin. Weed Sci. 35:89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Sagaral, E. G. and Fox, C. L. 1982. Response of several corn (Zea mays) cultivars and weed species to EPTC with and without the antidote R-25788. Weed Sci. 30:64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Sander, K. W., Barrett, M., and Witt, W. W. 1985. Physiological investigations of differential corn hybrid responses to imazaquin. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40: 120–121.Google Scholar
14. Shaner, D. L. and Anderson, P. C. 1985. Mechanism of action of the imidazolinones and cell culture selection of tolerant maize. Pages 287–299, in Zaitlin, M., Day, P., and Hollander, A., eds. Biotechnology in Plant Science. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Shaner, D. L. and Robson, P. A. 1985. Adsorption, translocation, and metabolism of AC-252, 214 in soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 33:469–471.Google Scholar
16. Walker, A. 1971. Effects of soil moisture content on the availability of soil-applied herbicides to plants. Pestic. Sci. 2:56–59.Google Scholar
17. Wright, T. H. and Rieck, C. E. 1973. Differential butylate injury to corn hybrids. Weed Sci. 21:194–196.Google Scholar
18. Wright, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1965. Photochemical decomposition of trifluralin. Weed Sci. 13:329–331.Google Scholar