Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:21:49.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Corn (Zea mays L.) Inbreds and Hybrids to Sulfonylurea Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jerry M. Green  and
Jim F. Ulrich
Jerry M. Green
Affiliation:
Agric. Prod., Stine-Haskell Res. Ctr., DuPont Co., Newark, DE 19714
Jim F. Ulrich
Affiliation:
Agric. Prod., Stine-Haskell Res. Ctr., DuPont Co., Newark, DE 19714
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extensive field and greenhouse studies were done to characterize varietal response of three recently commercialized sulfonylurea corn herbicides: nicosulfuron, primisulfuron, and thifensulfuron. Most of the 94 varieties tested were highly tolerant to these herbicides. The 37 inbreds represented all major inbred families now used in hybrid seed production as well as several sensitive experimentals. Twenty-one defined hybrids from these inbreds as well as 36 commercially coded hybrids were also tested. Sensitive inbreds produced tolerant hybrids when crossed with tolerant inbreds. Sensitive hybrids occurred when both parents were sensitive. Genetic analysis of sensitive by tolerant crosses showed that sensitivity is controlled by a single recessive gene. Nicosulfuron had the widest corn safety margin and fewest sensitive varieties. Dose response analysis showed varieties can vary more than 40 000-fold in sensitivity. Only corn varieties with the AHAS-modified XA-17 gene showed any change in enzyme sensitivity. This gene overcame sensitivity to sulfonylureas, even when the organophosphate insecticide terbufos was present. Thus, breeders have three options to eliminate sulfonylurea sensitivity: backcross sensitive inbreds with tolerant, always use at least one tolerant hybrid parent, or use the XA-17 gene.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)aminocarbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]-carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidthifensulfuron, 3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylic acidterbufos, S-[(tert-butylthio)methyl]-O,O-diethyl phosphorodithioatecorn, Zea mays L.MaizenicosulfuronprimisulfuronthifensulfuronchlorimuronchlorsulfurontribenuronmetsulfuronsulfometuronvarietiesXA-17AHASALSresistance
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 508 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Aldrich, S. R., Scott, W. O., and Hoeft, R. G. 1986. Modern Corn Production. A & L Publications, Champaign, IL. 358 pp.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, P. C. and Hibberd, K. A. 1988. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. U. S. Patent 4,761,373.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. Accentrg Product Label. DuPont Co., Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. Beaconrg Product Label. CIBA-GEIGY Corp., Greensboro, NC 27419.Google Scholar
5. Anonymous. Counterrg Product Label. American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, NJ 07470.Google Scholar
6. Anonymous. Harmony and Pinnaclerg Product Label. DuPont Co., Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
7. Anonymous. 1986. How a corn plant develops. Spec. Rep. No. 48, Iowa State Univ. Google Scholar
8. Bauman, T. T., Owen, M.D.K., and Liebel, R. A. 1992. Evaluation of Garst 8532IT corn for herbicide tolerance. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:44.Google Scholar
9. Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1988. Chapter 3: Sulfonylurea herbicides. Pages 117–190 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Vol. 3. Marcel-Dekker. New York.Google Scholar
10. Boldt, L. D., Barrett, M., Poneleit, C. G., and Polge, N. D. 1992. Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenase activity and cross-sensitivity to other herbicides of a bentazon-susceptible corn inbred. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:185.Google Scholar
11. Bradshaw, L. D. and Ricotta, J. A. 1993. MON 12000: a new herbicide for postemergence broadleaf weed control in corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:23.Google Scholar
12. Burton, J. D., Maness, E. M., Monks, D. W., and Robinson, D. K. 1992. Differential herbicide tolerance of Landmark and Merit sweet corn is due to different rates of metabolism. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:91.Google Scholar
13. Diehl, K. E., Mukaida, H., Liebel, R. A., and Stoller, E. W. 1993. Sensitivity mechanism in an ALS-susceptible corn hybrid. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:191.Google Scholar
14. Diehl, K. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1992. Effect of terbufos on the metabolism of nicosulfuron in corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:99.Google Scholar
15. Eberlein, C. V., Roscow, K. M., Geadelmann, J. L., and Openshaw, S. J. 1989. Differential tolerance of corn genotypes to DPX-M6316. Weed Sci. 37:651–657.Google Scholar
16. Fienberg, S. E. 1977. The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
17. Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 7:633–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Green, J. M., Leek, G. L., Strachan, S. D., Palm, H. L., and Rowe, S. W. 1990. DPX-79406—a new postemergence herbicide for corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 30:50.Google Scholar
19. Green, J. M. and Streibig, J. C. 1992. Herbicide mixtures. Pages 117–135 in Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassay. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
20. Hageman, L. H., Dobrotka, M. J., and Rowe, S. W. 1991. Update on the interactions between nicosulfuron and organophosphate soil insecticides. Proc. NCWSS 46:46.Google Scholar
21. Harvey, R. G. 1992. Mon-13900 for reducing field and sweet corn injury from nicosulfuron and terbufos. Proc. NCWSS 47:26.Google Scholar
22. Holshouser, D. L., Chandler, J. M., and Smith, H. D. 1991. The influence of terbufos on the response of five corn (Zea mays) hybrids to CGA-136872. Weed Technol. 5:165–168.Google Scholar
23. Holm, M. F., Hageman, L. H., and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Tolerance of midwest corn varieties to nicosulfuron. Proc. NCWSS 47:59.Google Scholar
24. Kreuz, K., Fonne-Pfister, R., and Porpiglia, P. J. 1991. Organophosphorus insecticides as inhibitors of cytochrome P450-dependent sulfonylurea herbicide metabolism. Abstr. Am. Soc. Plant Physiol. 96:27.Google Scholar
25. Kupatt, C. C., Gillespie, G. R., Peek, J. W., Gerber, H. R., Meyer, W., Oertle, K., and Schulte, M. 1993. Broadleaf weed control with CGA-152005, a new herbicide for corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:21.Google Scholar
26. Landi, P., Vicari, A., and Catizone, P. 1989. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines and hybrids to chlorsulfuron. Weed Res. 29:265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Monks, D. W., Mullins, C. A., and Johnson, K. E. 1992. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:280–283.Google Scholar
28. Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:91–96.Google Scholar
29. Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effect of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn (Zea mays) under three environments. Weed. Technol. 5:130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Newhouse, K. E., Singh, B., and Stidham, M. 1991. Mutations in corn (Zea mays L.) conferring resistance to imidazoline herbicides. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:65–70.Google Scholar
31. Newhouse, K. E., Wang, T., and Anderson, P. C. 1991. Imidazoline-Resistant Crops. Pages 139–150 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
32. Porpiglia, P. J. and Gillespie, G. R. 1992. Worldwide maize (Zea mays L.) response to primisulfuron. First Int. Weed Control Conf. 2:394–397.Google Scholar
33. Porpiglia, P. J., Rawls, E. K., Gillespie, G. R., and Peek, J. W. 1990. A method to evaluate the differential response of corn (Zea mays) to sulfonylureas. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 30:86.Google Scholar
34. Pruss, S. W. and Johnson, M. D. 1992. Primisulfuron interaction with soil applied insecticides in corn (Zea mays). First Int. Weed Control Conf. 2:410–413.Google Scholar
35. Rowe, L., Rossman, E., and Penner, D. 1990. Differential response of corn hybrids and inbreds to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 38:563–566.Google Scholar
36. Sebastian, S. A., Fader, G. M., Ulrich, J. F., Forney, D. R., and Chaleff, R. S. 1989. Semidominant soybean mutation for resistance to sulfonylureas herbicides. Crop Sci. 29:1403–1408.Google Scholar
37. Shurtleff, M. C., ed. 1980. Compendium of Corn Diseases. American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, MN. 105 pp.Google Scholar
38. Ulrich, J. F., Green, J. M., Rowe, S. W., and Dobrotka, M. J. 1990. Nicosulfuron safety to field corn inbreds and hybrids. Proc. NCWSS 45:33.Google Scholar
39. Viger, P. R., Eberlein, C. V., Openshaw, S. J., Gronwald, J. W., and Wyse, D. L. 1989. Differential tolerance of selected corn lines to CGA-136872. Proc. NCWSS 44:75.Google Scholar