Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:11:14.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of Adjuvants with Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron for Wirestem Muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) Control in No-Till Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Vijay K. Nandula ,
William S. Curran ,
Gregory W. Roth  and
Nathan L. Hartwig
Vijay K. Nandula
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
William S. Curran
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Gregory W. Roth
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Nathan L. Hartwig
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron with different adjuvants on wirestem muhly control. The adjuvants evaluated with the two herbicides included a nonionic surfactant, crop-oil concentrate, crop-oil concentrate plus urea-ammonium nitrate, methylated vegetable-oil concentrate, and organosilicone methylated vegetable-oil concentrate. In the greenhouse, nicosulfuron and primisulfuron performance was similar, although small differences occurred between adjuvants and herbicides. In the field, changing adjuvant affected nicosulfuron performance more than primisulfuron and in general, greater control was achieved with nicosulfuron than with primisulfuron. Among adjuvants, methylated vegetable-oil concentrate provided greater wirestem muhly control with nicosulfuron and sometimes primisulfuron compared to the others, while the nonionic surfactant was the least effective with both herbicides. Regardless of adjuvant, none of the field-applied treatments controlled wirestem muhly much beyond the 12 wk-evaluation period.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidcorn, Zea mays (L.)wirestem muhly, Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir) Fern. # MUHFRAdjuvantscrop-oil concentratemethylated vegetable-oil concentratenonionic surfactantno-tillorganosilicone methylated vegetable-oil concentrateperennial grassurea-ammonium nitratesulfonylureas
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 525 - 530
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. Anonymous. 1994. Accent herbicide specimen label. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1994. Beacon herbicide product label. Ciba Plant Protection, Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC 27419.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1992. Dyne-Amic specimen label. Setre Chemical Company, Memphis, TN 38119.Google Scholar
4. Bruce, J. A., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1993. Absorption and activity of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) as affected by adjuvants. Weed Sci. 41:218–224.Google Scholar
5. Chaney, D. and Kapusta, G. 1983. Evaluation of soybean oil concentration vs. petroleum oil concentrate with postemergence soybean herbicides. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:366–367.Google Scholar
6. Curran, W. S., Werner, E. L., and Hartwig, N. L. 1994. Effectiveness of herbicides and tillage on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:324–330.Google Scholar
7. Czapar, G. F. and Fawcett, R. S. 1987. Wirestem muhly. North Central Regional Extension Publication 260. Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1050.Google Scholar
8. Hess, F. D. and Falk, R. H. 1990. Herbicide deposition on leaves. Weed Sci. 38:280–288.Google Scholar
9. Keeney, F. N., Noveroske, R. L., and Flaim, T. D. 1988. Influence of adjuvants on the postemergence phytotoxicity of haloxyfop methyl herbicide on Setaria spp. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. 371:102–110.Google Scholar
10. Lueschen, W. E. 1983. A comparison of time and rate of application of sethoxydim with soybean oil in soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:11.Google Scholar
11. Nalewaja, J. D., Skrzypczak, G. A., and Gillespie, G. R. 1986. Absorption and translocation of herbicides with lipid compounds. Weed Sci. 34:564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nandula, V. K. and Curran, W. S. 1994. A two-year study on wirestem muhly management in no-till corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:22.Google Scholar
13. Obrigawitch, T. T., Kenyon, W. H., and Kuratle, H. 1990. Effect of application timing on rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with DPX-V9360. Weed Sci. 38:45–49.Google Scholar
14. Strand, O. E. and Behrens, R. 1970. Effect of adjuvants on weed control in corn with atrazine. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 27:77–78.Google Scholar