Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:24:11.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimum Effective Rate of Chlorimuron and Imazaquin Applied to Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William L. Barrentine
William L. Barrentine*
Affiliation:
Delta Branch, Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted in 1986 and 1987 to determine the minimum effective rate (MER)3 of imazaquin and chlorimuron applied postemergence to common cocklebur. MER is defined as the quantity required to provide at least 90% control. Based on probit regression analyses, the mean calculated MERs of imazaquin and chlorimuron for 2-leaf common cocklebur were 27.5 and 4.5 g ai/ha, respectively. Under optimum growing conditions, the calculated MERs of imazaquin and chlorimuron for 6-leaf common cocklebur were 34 and 4.6 g/ha, respectively. When applied to 6-leaf plants under slight moisture stress, the calculated MERs for imazaquin and chlorimuron were 54 and 17.4 g/ha, respectively.

Keywords

Chlorimuron, 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl] benzoic acidimazaquin,2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-4-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #4 XANSTPostemergenceprobit analysissurfactantsoybeansXANST
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 126 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Anderson, J. M., and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:397–400.Google Scholar
2. Baldwin, F. L., Boyd, J. W., and Tripp, T. 1988. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv. MP-44.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L., and Oliver, L. R. 1977. Competition, threshold levels, and control of common cocklebur in soybeans. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn. and Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 83.Google Scholar
4. Barton, L. V. 1962. The germination of weed seeds. Weeds 10:174–182.Google Scholar
5. Bloomberg, J. E., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:507–513.Google Scholar
6. Claus, Jon S. 1987. Chlorimuron-Ethyl (Classic®): A new broadleaf herbicide in soybean. Weed Technol. 1:114–115.Google Scholar
7. Congleton, W. F., VanCantfort, A. M., and Lignowski, E. M. 1987. Imazaquin (Scepter®): A new soybean herbicide. Weed Technol. 1:186–188.Google Scholar
8. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed survey – Southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
9. Finney, D. J. 1971. Probit Analysis. 3rd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, London.Google Scholar
10. Gossett, B. J. 1971. Common cocklebur – soybean's worst enemy. Weeds Today 2:9–11.Google Scholar
11. Steele, R.G.D., and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics – A biometrical Approach. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar