Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:46:11.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions of Pyricularia setariae with Herbicides for Control of Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gary Peng  and
Kelly N. Byer
Gary Peng*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
Kelly N. Byer
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sethoxydim, tralkoxydim, imazethapyr, quinclorac, propanil, glyphosate, and glufosinate were tested at rates below those recommended by the manufacturers with Pyricularia setariae Niskada under greenhouse conditions for control of green foxtail. At one-tenth of the recommended rate in a 100 L/ha carrier volume, only the sethoxydim–P. setariae combination achieved more effective green foxtail control when compared with the herbicide or pathogen alone. Selected herbicides at one-tenth, one-fourth, and one-half of the recommended rates showed variable interactions with the pathogen on plants with three and five leaves. Propanil (recommended rate 0.99 kg ai/ha) was more synergistic at higher rates, especially on larger plants, for which the combined treatment increased green foxtail mortality from zero in the herbicide alone to 100%. Quinclorac (recommended rate 0.10 kg ai/ha) acted similarly to propanil with slightly lower synergy effects. Sethoxydim (recommended rate 0.15 kg ai/ha) at one-tenth or one-quarter of the rate plus P. setariae often enhanced green foxtail control on larger plants. On smaller plants, the herbicide and pathogen alone were highly efficacious. Compared with tank mixes with P. setariae, propanil, quinclorac, or sethoxydim applied 6 h before the pathogen or earlier generally showed greater efficacy. Delaying a tank mix application for up to 2 h had little negative effect, but longer than 4 h often reduced efficacy. When combining the pathogen at different doses with propanil, quinclorac, or sethoxydim at one-tenth, one-quarter, and one-half of the rate, both fungal dose and herbicide rate affected the efficacy. Coapplying any of the herbicides at the one-quarter rate with the pathogen at the sublethal dose of 2 × 107 spores/ml achieved complete control of green foxtail.

Keywords

Green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIPyricularia setariae Nisikado [synonym: Pyricularia grisea (Cooke) Sacc.]Biocontrolmycoherbicidessynergy% CFW, percent control fresh weight (or percent fresh weight of nontreated control)CRD, completely randomized designNUV, near ultravioletsp/ml, spores/mlWSSA, Weed Science Society of America
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 589 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Beckie, H. J. and Morrison, I. N. 1993. Effect of ethalfluralin and other herbicides on trifluralin-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Technol. 7:6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Thomas, A. G., and Légère, A. 1999. Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) across Saskatchewan ecoregions. Weed Technol. 13:626–631.Google Scholar
Boyetchko, S. and Peng, G. 2004. Challenges and strategies for development of mycoherbicides. in Arora, D. K., ed. Fungal Biotechnology in Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 111–121.Google Scholar
Boyetchko, S. M., Rosskopf, E. N., Caesar, A. J., and Charudattan, R. 2002. Biological weed control with pathogens: search for candidates to applications. in Khachatourians, G. G. and Arora, D. K., eds. Applied Mycology and Biotechnology, Volume 2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Pp. 239–274.Google Scholar
Caulder, J. D. and Stowell, L. 1988 Oct 4. Synergistic herbicidal compositions comprising Colletotrichum truncatum and chemical herbicides. U.S. patent 4,775,405.Google Scholar
Charudattan, R. 2001. Biological control of weeds by means of plant pathogens: significance for integrated weed management in modern agro-ecology. BioControl 46:229–260.Google Scholar
Christy, A. L., Herbst, K. A., Kostka, S. J., Mullen, J. P., and Carlson, P. S. 1993. Synergizing weed biocontrol agents with chemical herbicides. in Duke, S. O., Menn, J. J., and Plimmer, J. R., eds. Pest Control with Enhanced Environmental Safety. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Pp. 87–100.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
Grant, N. T., Prusinkiewicz, E., Mortensen, K., and Makowski, R. M. D. 1990. Herbicide interactions with Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. malvae a bioherbicide for round-leaved mallow (Malva pusilla) control. Weed Technol. 4:716–723.Google Scholar
Greaves, M. P. and MacQueen, M. D. 1992. Bioherbicides: their role in tomorrow's agriculture. in Denholm, I., Devonshire, A. L., and Hollomon, D. W., eds. Achievements and Developments in Combating Pesticide Resistance. London: Elsevier Applied Science. Pp. 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K. 1998. Quinclorac belongs to a new class of highly selective auxin herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:707–716.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. and Morrison, I. N. 1996. Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides in green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 44:25–30.Google Scholar
Heiny, D. K. 1994. Field survival of Phoma proboscis and synergism with herbicides for control of field bindweed. Plant Dis. 78:1156–1164.Google Scholar
Hoagland, R. E. 1996. Chemical interaction with bioherbicide to improve efficacy. Weed Technol. 10:651–674.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. H., Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., Snyder, R. H., and Collette, A. 1988. Efficacy of Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2:473–480.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. in The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 420–425.Google Scholar
Jain, R. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1989. Morphological and histological effects of three grass selective herbicides on developing wild oat (Avena fatua) stems. Weed Sci. 37:575–584.Google Scholar
Lamoureux, G. L. and Rusness, D. G. 1995. Quinclorac absorption, translocation, metabolism, and toxicity in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 53:210–226.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R., and Van Acker, R. C. 2002. Manitoba Weed Survey of Cereal and Oilseed Crops in 2002. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre. 191 p.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B., Higgins, J. M., Corbin, F. T., and Whitwell, T. 1990. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of sethoxydim in centipedegrass and goosegrass. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 115:605–607.Google Scholar
Moss, M. A. and Trevathan, L. E. 1987. Environmental conditions conducive to infection of ryegrass by Pyricularia grisea . Phytopathology 77:863–866.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Szelezniak, E. 1994. Sethoxydim response to spray carrier chemical properties and environment. Weed Technol. 8:591–597.Google Scholar
Peng, G., Wolf, T. M., Byer, K. N., and Caldwell, B. 2001. Spray retention on green foxtail (Setaria viridis) using airbrush and broadcast sprayers and its impact on the efficacy of a mycoherbicide agent. in Ni, H. W. and Zhen, G. Y., eds. 18th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. Beijing, China: Standard. Pp. 699–706.Google Scholar
Peng, G., Byer, K. N., and Bailey, K. L. 2004. Pyricularia setariae: a potential bioherbicide agent for control of green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 52:105–114.Google Scholar
Roslycky, E. B. 1986. Microbial response to sethoxydim and its degradation in soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 66:411–419.Google Scholar
[SAF] Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. 2002. Guide to Crop Protection— Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Regina, SK, Canada: Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food Provincial Publication. 330 p.Google Scholar
Sharon, A., Amsellem, Z., and Gressel, J. 1992. Glyphosate suppression of an elicited defense response. Plant Physiol. 98:654–659.Google Scholar
Shoaf, A. R. and Carlson, W. C. 1992. Stability of sethoxydim and its degradation products in solution, in soil, and on surfaces. Weed Sci. 40:384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Frick, B. L., Van Acker, R. C., Knezevic, S. Z., and Joosse, D. 1998. Manitoba Weed Survey of Cereal and Oilseed Crops in 1997. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre. 192 p.Google Scholar
Wymore, L. A. and Watson, A. K. 1989. Interaction between a velvetleaf isolate of Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in the field. Weed Sci. 37:478–483.Google Scholar
Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1987. Interaction between Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:377–383.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Wolf, T. M., Bailey, K. L., Mortensen, K., and Boyetchko, S. M. 2003. Screening of adjuvants for bioherbicide formulations with Colletotrichum spp. and Phoma spp. Biol. Control 26:95–108.Google Scholar