Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T21:58:54.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flurtamone for Wild Mustard (Sinapis arvensis) Control in Canola (Brassica napus and B. campestris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Wall
David A. Wall*
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, P.O. Box 3001, Morden, Manitoba, Canada R0G 1J0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The tolerance of canola to soil applied flurtamone was investigated in greenhouse and field studies. In the greenhouse, the dosage of flurtamone required to reduce canola fresh weight by 50% was 7.1- to 8.4- and 4.4- to 6.1-fold higher for B. napus and B. campestris cultivars, respectively, than that required to reduced wild mustard fresh weight by 50%. B. campestris cultivars tended to be more sensitive to flurtamone than B. napus cultivars. In the field, flurtamone applied at 0.4 to 0.5 kg ai ha-1 controlled 80% of wild mustard in canola (B. napus cv. ‘Westar’). In 1991 canola plant densities were reduced by increasing rate of flurtamone, but seed yields were unaffected by rate of application in either year.

Keywords

Flurtamone, (±)-5-(methylamino)-2-phenyl-4-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-3-(2H)-furanonewild mustard, Sinapis arvensis L. # SINARcanola, Brassica napus, Brassica campestrisWeed controlRE40885crop densityweed densitycultivars
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 878 - 883
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1987. Seeds Act. Seeds Regulations (Parts I and III). Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Government of Canada. 79 p.Google Scholar
2. Beversdorf, W. D. and Hume, D. J. 1984. OAC Triton Spring Rape Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:1007–1009.Google Scholar
3. Beversdorf, W. D., Hume, D. J., Gostovic, P., Chu, G., Montiminy, W., and Muscat, J. 1990. OAC Triumph Summer Rape. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 70:857–859.Google Scholar
4. Blackshaw, R. E., Anderson, G. W., and Dekker, J. 1987. Interference of Sinapis arvensis L. and Chenopodium album L. in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Weed Res. 27:207–213.Google Scholar
5. Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. Control of Cruciferae weeds in canola (Brassica napus) with DPX A7881. Weed Sci. 37:706–711.Google Scholar
6. Buchanan, F. S., Swanton, C. J., and Gillespie, T. J. 1990. Postemergence control of weeds in winter rapeseed, Brassica napus, with DPX-A7881. Weed Sci. 38:389–395.Google Scholar
7. Christensen, J. V. and Drabble, J. C. 1984. Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on rapeseed yield in northwest Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:1011–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1990. Wild mustard control in sunflower with flurtamone. Can. J. Plant Sci 70:1195–1197.Google Scholar
9. Kondra, Z. P. 1975. Effects of row spacing and seeing rate on rapeseed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:339–341.Google Scholar
10. Kondra, Z. P. 1977. Effects of planted seed size and seeding rate on rapeseed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:277–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. McGregor, D. I. 1987. Effect of plant density on development and yield of rapeseed and its significance to recovery from hail injury. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:43–51.Google Scholar
12. Morrison, M. J., McVetty, P.B.E., and Scarth, R. 1990. Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on summer rape in southern Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70:127–137.Google Scholar
13. Mueller, T. C. and Banks, P. A. 1989. Peanut weed control systems utilizing RE-40885. Peanut Sci. 16:87–91.Google Scholar
14. Mueller, T. C., Banks, P. A., and Bridges, D. C. 1990. Dissipation of flurtamone in three Georgia soils. Weed Sci. 38:411–415.Google Scholar
15. Mueller, T. C., Banks, P. A., and Steen, W. C. 1991. Microbial degradation of flurtamone in three Georgia soils. Weed Sci 39:270–274.Google Scholar
16. Rogers, D. D., Kirby, B. W., Hulbert, J. C., Bledsoe, M. E., Hill, L. V., Omid, A., and Ward, C. E. 1987. RE-40885: A new broadleaf herbicide in cotton, peanut, sorghum and sunflower. 1987. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Proc.–Weeds 1:69–75.Google Scholar
17. Swanton, C. J. and Chandler, K. 1989. Control of wild mustard in canola with postemergence herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:889–896.Google Scholar
18. Thomas, P. 1984. Canola Growers Manual. Canola Council of Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 1308 p.Google Scholar
19. Wall, D. A. 1990. Control of wild and ball mustard in field peas. Research Report of the Expert Committee on Weeds (Western Section) 1:371–372.Google Scholar
20. Wall, D. A. 1991. Tolerance of ‘Eston’ lentils to fall applications of flurtamone. Research Report of the Expert Committee on Weeds (Western Section) 1:302.Google Scholar