Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:11:58.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Crop Response to Glufosinate-Based Weed Management in PAT-Transformed Sweet Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lee R. Van Wychen ,
R. Gordon Harvey ,
Mark J. Vangessel ,
Thomas L. Rabaey  and
David J. Bach
Lee R. Van Wychen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
R. Gordon Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 19947
Thomas L. Rabaey
Affiliation:
Pillsbury Agricultural Research, LeSueur, MN 56058
David J. Bach
Affiliation:
Pillsbury Agricultural Research, LeSueur, MN 56058
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Arlington, WI, in 1996 and 1997 and at Georgetown, DE, and LeSueur, MN, in 1997 to determine weed control efficacy, crop injury, and yield response of PAT-transformed sweet corn to glufosinate-based weed management. Sequential applications of glufosinate 10 to 18 d apart at 0.4 and 0.3 kg ai/ha controlled common lambsquarters, common ragweed, velvetleaf, wild-proso millet, and fall panicum 90% or better at all locations. Weed control varied little among 0.3, 0.4, or 0.3 and 0.3 (sequential) kg/ha glufosinate rates. Glufosinate applied alone, with, or following atrazine controlled velvetleaf 90% or greater but was less consistent on common ragweed and common lambsquarters (73 to 100%). Atrazine plus metolachlor applied preemergence (PRE) and glufosinate applied alone postemergence (POST) provided inconsistent wild-proso millet and fall panicum control (43 to 99%). Metolachlor followed by glufosinate improved consistency of grass control (> 76%). Glufosinate followed by cultivation provided 80% or greater control of velvetleaf and wild-proso millet. Glufosinate did not injure or delay maturity of PAT-transformed sweet corn. Sweet corn treated with glufosinate resulted in yields greater than or equal to the sweet corn that was hand-weeded or received a standard herbicide treatment.

Keywords

Atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineglufosinate, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acidmetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHwild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. ssp. ruderale (Kitagawa) Tzevelev. # PANMIsweet corn, Zea mays L. ‘GH 0937.'Herbicide combinationscultivationtransgenic sweet cornAbutilon theophrastiAmbrosia artemisiifoliaChenopodium albumPanicum dichotomiflorumPanicum miliaceumABUTHAMBELCHEALPANDIPANMIGS, glutamine synthetasePAT, phosphinothricin-N-acetyl transferase genePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 104 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Ahmadi, M. S., Haderlie, L. C., and Wicks, G. A. 1980. Effect of growth stage and water stress on barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control and on glyphosate absorption and translocation. Weed Sci. 28:277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, W. H., Cox, D. J., and Budhwar, G. 1990. Use of the arcsine and square root transformations for subjectively determined percentage data. Weed Sci. 38:452–458.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Atrazine pesticides; use restrictions. Chapter ATCP 30. Wisconsin Dep. Agric. Trade Consumer Prot. Register. 459:125–128.Google Scholar
Berzsenyi, Z., Kopacsi, J., Arendas, T., Bonis, P., and Lap, D. Q. 1998. Three-years experiences about the weed control efficacy and selectivity of glufosinate in transgenic maize. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:5.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. Hoe 39866 use in chemical fallow systems. Weed Technol. 3:420–428.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Germination, emergence, and growth of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum). Weed Sci. 45:423–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1988. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence-directed herbicides. Weed Sci. 36:215–220.Google Scholar
Hanson, J. E., Stoltenberg, D. E., Lowery, B., and Binning, L. K. 1997. Influence of application rate on atrazine fate in a silt loam soil. J. Environ. Qual. 26:829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and McNevin, G. R. 1990. Combining cultural practices and herbicides to control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Technol. 4:433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., and Hart, S. E. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate- and glufosinate-tolerant corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:5.Google Scholar
Kee, E., Mulrooney, R. P., Caron, D., VanGessel, M., and Whalen, J. 1998. Delaware Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Ext. Bull. 137. 168 p.Google Scholar
Selling, K. A., Bundy, L. G., Combs, S. M., and Peters, J. B. 1997. Soil Test Recommendations for Field, Vegetable, and Fruit Crops. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Ext. UWEX Publ. A2809. 70 p.Google Scholar
Kleppe, C. D. and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence-directed herbicides control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:934–939.Google Scholar
LeBaron, H. M. and McFarland, J. 1990. Herbicide resistance in weeds and crops. In Green, M. B., LeBaron, H. M., and Moberg, W. K., eds. Managing Resistance to Agrochemicals—From Fundamental Research to Practical Strategies. Washington, DC: Am. Chem. Soc. pp. 336–352.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1997. Control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm.), wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.), and woolly cupgrass [Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth.] in glufosinate resistant field corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:87.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:91–96.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1997. Effect of timing and adjuvants on the efficacy of reduced herbicide rates for sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:720–724.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997a. Annual grass control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron combined with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 11:171–175.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1997b. Sequential applications control woolly cupgrass (Eriochloa villosa) and wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:537–542.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. 1998. Weed control systems utilizing glufosinate and glufosinate-resistant crops. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:5.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., Schultheis, J. R., and Worsham, A. D. 1993. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to application timing of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:840–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roggenbuck, F. C. and Penner, D. 1997. Efficacious adjuvants for glufosinateammonium, glyphosate-isopropylamine, and glyphosate-trimethylsulfonium. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:71.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. and Eliason, R. 1996. Nutrient Management for Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Crops in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Ext. Serv. Publ. BU-5886-GO. 34 p.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., Braverman, M. P., Jodari, F., Linscombe, S. D., and Oard, J. H. 1997. Evaluation of glufosinate on rice (Oryza sativa) transformed with the BAR gene and red rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 11:70–75.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1992. Sweet corn cultivars respond differently to the herbicide nicosulfuron. Hortic. Sci. 27:131–133.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1997a. Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci. 45:378–381.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1997b. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11:484–488.Google Scholar
Tachibana, K., Watanabe, T., Sekizawa, Y., and Takematsu, T. 1986. Inhibition of glutamine synthetase and quantitative changes of free fatty acids in shoots of bialaphos treated Japanese barnyard millet. J. Pestic. Sci. 11:27–31.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 1996. Nicosulfuron tolerance in sweet corn (Zea mays) as affected by hybrid, rootworm insecticide, and nicosulfuron treatment. Weed Technol. 10:488–494.Google Scholar