Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:17:15.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Simulated Rainfall, Insecticide Formulation, and Insecticide Application Method on the Interaction between Nicosulfuron and Terbufos in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kevin E. Diehl  and
Edward W. Stoller
Kevin E. Diehl
Affiliation:
Res. Biol. DuPont Agric. Products, Newark, DE 19714 Dep. Agron., Univ. Ill. and USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL 61801
Edward W. Stoller
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ill. and USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Applications of both terbufos and nicosulfuron can result in a synergistic interaction that injures corn. Field studies were conducted at two Illinois locations in 1991 to determine the effect of insecticide formulation and application method on the serverity of this interaction. Terbufos, applied to the soil at planting, interacted with nicosulfuron applied postemergence to injure corn and reduce grain yield. In-furrow-applied terbufos caused a more injurious interaction to corn than terbufos placed in a surface band; the 15G formulation was more injurious than the 20CR formulation. Simulated rainfall timing experiments were conducted in 1992 and 1993 by treating corn with terbufos 15G and terbufos 20CR and applying rainfall (3.8 cm) 1, 7, or 14 d before nicosulfuron application. No visual injury or yield reductions were noted in corn treated with nicosulfuron alone. Terbufos 15G caused greater corn injury than did terbufos 20CR at each rainfall timing when sprayed with nicosulfuron. Corn injury and subsequent grain yield that can result from the interaction between nicosulfuron and terbufos was greater when simulated rainfall occurred 1 and 7 d before nicosulfuron application than when rainfall occurred 14 d before application.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideterbufos, S-[[(1,1-dimethylethyl)thio]-methyl]O,O-diethyl phosphorodithioatecorn, Zea mays L.Herbicide-insecticide interactionorganophosphate insecticidesulfonylurea
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 80 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. “Corn Production,” March 1993. 1992 Summary and Agricultural Chemical Usage Survey, Nat. Agric. Stat. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agric. Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. Accent® Herbicide Product Label, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
3. Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1991. Corn tolerance to organophosphate insecticides and nicosulfuron. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 48:226.Google Scholar
4. Banwart, W. L. 1988. Field evaluation of an acid rain-drought stress interaction. Environ. Pollut. 53:123.Google Scholar
5. Campbell, J. R. and Penner, D. 1982. Enhanced phytotoxicity of bentazon with organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Weed Sci. 30:324–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Carmer, S. G. 1984. Formulae for least significant differences in combined analyses of split-plot experiments. p. 1–3 in Technical Report Number 18, Urbana, IL: Statistical Laboratory, Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
7. Carmer, S. G., Walker, W. M., and Seif, R. D. 1969. Practical suggestions on pooling variances for F tests of treatment effects. Agron. J. 61:334–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Chang, F-Y., Bandeen, J. D., and Smith, L. W. 1971. Influence of herbicides on insecticide metabolism in leaf tissue. J. Agric. Food Chem. 19:1183–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Diehl, K. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1990. Interaction of organophosphate insecticides with nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:31–32.Google Scholar
10. Diehl, K. E., Stoller, E. W., and Barrett, M. 1995. In vivo and in vitro inhibition of nicosulfuron metabolism by terbufos metabolites on maize. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. (In press).Google Scholar
11. El-Refai, A. R. and Mowafy, M. 1973. Interaction of propanil with insecticides absorbed from soil and translocated into rice plants. Weed Sci. 21:246–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Felsot, A. S. 1985. Factors affecting the bioactivity of soil insecticides. p. 134–138 in Proc. 37th Illinois Custom Spray Operators Training School, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
13. Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1992. Interaction of terbufos and nicosulfuron on corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:999–1003.Google Scholar
14. Monke, B. J. and Mayo, Z. B. 1990. Influence of edaphological factors on residual activity of selected insecticides in laboratory studies with emphasis on soil moisture and temperature. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:226–233.Google Scholar
15. 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.Google Scholar
16. Nash, R. G. 1967. Phytotoxic pesticide interactions in soil. Agron. J. 59:227–230.Google Scholar
17. Nash, R. G. 1968. Synergistic phytotoxicities of herbicide-insecticide combinations in soil. Weed Sci. 16:74–77.Google Scholar