Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:43:30.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flufenacet and Isoxaflutole Combinations for Weed Control and Corn (Zea mays) Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. James Grichar ,
Brent A. Besler  and
Drew T. Palrang
W. James Grichar*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102
Brent A. Besler
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102
Drew T. Palrang
Affiliation:
Bayer CropScience, Austin, TX 78739
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 at seven locations in south Texas to evaluate flufenacet plus isoxaflutole for weed control and corn tolerance. Palmer amaranth control with flufenacent plus isoxaflutole was variable, with no greater than 60% control at one location and greater than 95% control at another. The poor control at the one location was probably due to lack of rainfall for 3 to 4 wk after corn was planted. Flufenacet plus isoxaflutole at 0.56 or 0.7 kg/ha controlled Texas panicum at least 80%, whereas flufenacet plus isoxaflutole rates lower than 0.56 kg/ha provided variable control (55 to 99%). Flufenacet plus isoxaflutole at 0.35 and 0.49 kg/ha controlled pitted morningglory at least 83%. Corn stunting (3 to 16%) with flufenacet plus isoxaflutole was noted at the one location where the soil sand content was greater than 80% and moisture was received within 48 h of herbicide application. With few exceptions, corn weed control and yield with flufenacet plus isoxaflutole combinations were generally comparable to those observed for the atrazine and acetochlor standard treatments.

Keywords

FlufenacetisoxaflutolePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa (L.) # IPOLATexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEcorn, Zea mays L., ‘AS986’, ‘DK668’, ‘Pioneer 3223’, ‘Pioneer 32K61’Corn toleranceweed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 891 - 896
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

Behrens, R. 1975. Corn and weeds. Weeds Today 6:15–18.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Prostak, R. G. 1996. Activity of EXP 31130A in annual weed control in field corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36:13.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. and Masiunas, J. 2002. Evaluation of herbicides for pumpkin (Curcurbia spp). Weed Technol. 16:282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9:356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, J. C., Kells, J. J., Swinton, S. M., and Renner, K. A. 1997. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Brewer, K. D., and Palrang, D. T. 2003. Flufenacet and metribuzin combinations for weed control and corn (Zea mays) tolerance. Weed Technol. 17:346–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzois, K. K. ed. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement. 7th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. A., Donaldson, F. S., Komm, D. A., Palrang, A. T., Rudolph, R. D., and Bloomberg, J. R. 1998. Performance of Axiom in field corn in the southern United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:223–224.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. A. and Hoverstad, T. R. 2002. Effect of row spacing and herbicide application timing on weed control and grain yield in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. V., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. L., Prisbylla, M. P., Cromartie, T. H., Dagarin, D. P., Howard, S. W., Provan, W. M., Ellis, M. K., Fraser, T., and Mutter, L. C. 1997. The discovery and structural requirements of inhibitors of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenases. Weed Sci. 45:601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallett, K. E., Cramp, S. M., Little, J. P., Veerasedaran, P., Crudace, A. J., and Slater, A. E. 2001. Isoxaflutole: the background to its discovery and the basis of its herbicidal properties. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:133–142.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallett, K. E., Little, J. P., Skeekey, M., and Veerasekaran, P. 1998. The mode of action of isoxaflutole. I. Physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 62:113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pflanzenschultz-Nachrichten, Bayer 1997. Special issue on BAY FOE 5043. 50:101–194.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Johnson, W. C. III, and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2001. Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut. Weed Technol. 15:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1999. Herbicide incorporation techniques and equipment. in Stewart, C., Stagman, J., and Garnis, M., eds. Applied Weed Science. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 371–375.Google Scholar
Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetanilide injury to corn. Weed Technol. 4:904–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. T. and Anisco, J. 2000. Corn in Texas. Web page: http://www.aggiehorticulture.tamu.edu/extension/cropbriefs/com.html. Accessed: April 25, 2004.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999a. Weed control and corn (Zea mays) tolerance from soil-applied RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13:713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999b. Enhancing margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in corn (Zea mays) with antidotes. Weed Sci. 47:492–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999c. Physiological basis for differential corn (Zea mays) tolerances of four corn hybrids to isoxaflutole. Weed Sci. 47:631–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Simmons, F. W., and Sprague, C. L. 2003. Soil factor effects on tolerance of two corn (Zea mays) hybrids to isoxaflutole plus flufenacet. Weed Technol. 17:599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vizantinopoulos, S. and Katranis, N. 1998. Weed management of Amaranthus spp. in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition. A review. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. Pp. 46–49.Google Scholar