Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:31:18.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proso Millet Tolerance to Saflufenacil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Drew J. Lyon  and
Andrew R. Kniss
Drew J. Lyon*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Panhandle Research and Extension Center, 4502 Avenue I, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Andrew R. Kniss
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3354, Laramie, WY 82071
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proso millet is an important short-season summer cereal in western Nebraska, southeast Wyoming, and eastern Colorado. The objective of this study was to evaluate proso millet tolerance to saflufenacil applied early preplant (EPP) or PRE. Field studies were conducted in Lingle, WY and Sidney, NE in 2008 and 2009. A dose–response study was conducted in the greenhouse at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, WY to determine proso millet cultivar response to saflufenacil applied at six rates from 0 to 400 g ai ha−1. In the field, saflufenacil was applied EPP and PRE at 50 and 100 g ha−1. Proso millet stands were reduced by an average of 33 and 23% by PRE and EPP treatments compared with the nontreated check; however, proso seed yields were not affected by saflufenacil timing or rate. In the greenhouse, ‘Panhandle’ and ‘Dawn’ exhibited less tolerance to saflufenacil than ‘Sunrise’, the cultivar used in the field studies.

El panicum miliaceum L. es un cereal importante de corta duración en el verano en el oeste de Nebraska, suroeste de Wyoming y el este de Colorado. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la tolerancia del panicum miliaceum L. al saflufenacil aplicado temprano en la pre-siembra (EPP) o PRE. Se llevaron al cabo estudios de campo en Lingle, WY y Sydney, NE en 2008 y 2009. Un estudio de respuesta a la dosis se llevo al cabo en el invernadero en la Universidad de Wyoming en Laramie, WY para determinar la respuesta de los cultivadores del panicum miliaceum L. al saflufenacil aplicado a seis dosis de 0 to 400 g ia/ha. En el campo, el saflufenacil fue aplicado EPP y PRE a 50 y 100 g/ha. Las plantas del panicum miliaceum L. se redujeron en un promedio de 33 y 23% por los tratamientos PRE y EPP en comparación con el testigo no tratado, sin embargo, los rendimientos de la semilla del panicum miliaceum L. no fueron afectados por el tiempo de aplicación o dosis de saflufenacil. Los invernaderos, ‘Panhandle’ y ‘Dawn’ mostraron menos tolerancia al saflufenacil que ‘Sunrise’, éstos cultivares se usaron en estos estudios de campo.

Keywords

Saflufenacil2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl[-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamideproso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.Crop injuryherbicidesoil persistencepre-emergencepreplanttolerance
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 349 - 355
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

Anderson, R. L. 1990. No-till proso millet production. Agron. J. 82:577–580.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. and Greb, B. W. 1987. Residual herbicides for weed control in proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Crop Prot 6:61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltensperger, D. D., Frickel, G. E., Nelson, L. A., Krall, J. M., Vigil, M., Hain, J., Johnson, J., Stymiest, C., and Rickertsen, J. R. 2004. Registration of ‘Horizon’ proso millet. Crop Sci 44:688–689.Google Scholar
Baltensperger, D. D., Nelson, L. A., and Frickel, G. E. 1995a. Registration of ‘Earlybird’ proso millet. Crop Sci 35:1204–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltensperger, D. D., Nelson, L. A., and Frickel, G. E. 1997. Registration of ‘Sunrise’ proso millet. Crop Sci 37:1380.Google Scholar
Baltensperger, D. D., Nelson, L. A., Frickel, G. E., and Anderson, R. L. 1995b. Registration of ‘Huntsman’ proso millet. Crop Sci 35:941.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Charvet, L. D. 2009. Dose response of five broadleaf weeds to saflufenacil. Weed Technol 23:313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabouski, P. H. 1971. Selective control of weeds in proso millet with herbicides. Weed Sci 19:207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K., Niggeweg, R., Christiansen, N., Looser, R., and Ehrhardt, T. 2010. The herbicide saflufenacil (Kixor®) is a new inhibitor of protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase activity. Weed Sci 58:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, W. W., Baltensperger, D. D., and Seetharam, A. 2004. Pearl millet and other millets. Pages 537–560. in Moser, L. E., et al (2004). Agronomy Monographs 45: Warm-Season (C4) Grasses. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Hixson, A. D. 2009. Soil Properties Affect Simazine and Saflufenacil Fate, Behavior, and Performance. Ph.D Dissertation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. (Available online at http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03182008-220808/.) (Verified March 17, 2010.).Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Datta, A., Scott, J., and Charvat, L. D. 2009. Interactions between saflufenacil and glyphosate on selected broadleaf weeds. Crop Manage. DOI: . Available at http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/. (Verified February 24, 2010).Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Datta, A., Scott, J., and Charvat, L. D. 2010. Tolerance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to pre-emergence and post-emergence application of saflufenacil. Crop Prot 29:148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Stroup, W. W., and Freund, R. J. 2002. SAS for Linear Models, 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J. and Baltensperger, D. D. 1993. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) tolerance to several postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 7:230–233.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J., Burgener, P. A., DeBoer, K. L., et al. 2008. Producing and marketing proso millet in the Great Plains. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Circular 137. Available at http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/ec137/build/ec137.pdf. Accessed: December 31, 2009.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J., Kniss, A., and Miller, S. D. 2007. Carfentrazone improves broadleaf weed control in proso and foxtail millets. Weed Technol 21:84–87.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. A. 1976. Registration of ‘Dawn’ proso millet. Crop Sci 16:739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, L. A. 1990. Influence of planting dates, seeding rates, and cultivars on grain yield and other agronomic traits of proso millet. J. Prod. Agric 3:184–189.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Stat. Softw 12 (5):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. G. 1973. Proso millet date of planting and tolerance to atrazine. Weed Sci 21:260–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Feurst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Soltani, N., and Shropshire, C. 2008. Tolerance of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oats (Avena Sativa L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to saflufenacil. Crop Prot 27:1495–1497.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. 2009. Response of corn to preemergence and postemergence applications of saflufenacil. Weed Technol 23:331–334.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W., Geier, P. W., and Charvat, L. D. 2009. Tolerance of three millet types to saflufenacil. Proc. North Centr. Weed Sci. Soc 64:127.Google Scholar
Turgut, I., Duman, A., Wietgrefe, G. W., and Acikgoz, E. 2006. Effect of seeding rate and nitrogen fertilization on proso millet under dryland and irrigated conditions. J. Plant Nutr 29:2119–2129.Google Scholar