Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:53:39.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sweet Corn (Zea mays) Cultivar Sensitivity to Mesotrione

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John O'Sullivan*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Simcoe, Ontario, Canada N3Y 4N5
John Zandstra
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Simcoe, Ontario, Canada N3Y 4N5
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 at Simcoe, Ridgetown, and Exeter, Ontario, to evaluate the tolerance of nine sweet corn cultivars to mesotrione, applied preemergence (PRE) at 140 and 280 g ai/ha and postemergence (POST) at 100 and 200 g ai/ha. Urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer (28%) at 2.5% (v/v) and crop oil concentrate at 1% (v/v) were added to POST applications of mesotrione only. All cultivars were tolerant to mesotrione applied PRE. There was no injury, or reductions in plant height or yield with PRE applications of mesotrione at any location in either year. POST applications of mesotrione, particularly at 200 g/ha, caused significant phytotoxicity to ‘Calico Belle’ and ‘Del Monte 2038’. Other cultivars also showed phytotoxic symptoms; however, this injury was much reduced and did not occur at all locations each year. Sweet corn injury by mesotrione increased as rate increased. Del Monte 2038 also had significantly reduced plant height and yields. Other cultivars had no plant height or yield reductions because of POST applications of mesotrione.

Type
Research
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

Anonymous. 2000. Vegetable Production Recommendations 2000-2001. Queen's Park, Toronto: Publication 363 Ontario Ministry of Agr. Food and Rural Affairs. 240 p.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. A. and Gorski, S. F. 1989. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) endosperm mutants to chloracetamide and thiocarbamate herbicide. Weed Technol. 3: 475478.Google Scholar
Doohan, D. J., Ivany, J. A., White, R. P., and Thomas, W. 1998. Tolerance of early maturing corn (Zea mays) hybrids to DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 12: 4146.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Dayan, F. E., Romagni, J. G., and Rimando, A. M. 2000. Natural products as sources of herbicides: current status and future trends. Weed Res. 40: 99111.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1998. Differential tolerance of corn (Zea mays) inbreds to four SU herbicides and bentazon. Weed Technol. 12: 474477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Luescher, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effect of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn (Zea mays) under three environments. Weed Technol. 5: 130136.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1998. Sensitivity of processing sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 151154.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Bouw, W. J. 1998. Tolerance of sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 12: 258261.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Sikkema, P. 2001. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 15: 332336.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., Schulthesis, J. R., and Worsham, A. D. 1993. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to application timing of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 840843.Google Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Neus, O., Cools, K., and Bulcke, R. 2000. Dissipation of the triketone mesotrione herbicide in the soil of corn crops grown on different soil types. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 77: 3140.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1992. Sweet corn cultivars respond differently to the herbicide nicosulfuron. Hortscience 27: 131133.Google Scholar
Sutton, P. B., Foxon, G. A., Beraud, J. M., Anderdon, J., and Wichert, R. A. 1999. Integrated weed management systems for maize using mesotrione, nicosulfuron and acetochlor. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 1: 225230.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., Elmes, M. J., Murphy, S. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1996. Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 10: 288294.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. 1999. Tolerance of sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrids to RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13: 221226.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Townson, J. K., Bartlett, D. W., and Foxon, G. A. 1999. Technical review of mesotrione, a new maize herbicide. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 1: 105110.Google Scholar
Widstrom, N. W. and Dowler, C. C. 1995. Sensitivity of selected field corn inbreds (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 779782.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 1996. Nicosulfuron tolerance in sweet corn (Zea mays) as affected by hybrid, root worm insecticide and nicosulfuron treatment. Weed Technol. 10: 484488.Google Scholar