Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:39:44.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Graminicide Formulation on Compatibility with Other Pesticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sarah H. Lancaster ,
David L. Jordan  and
P. Dewayne Johnson
Sarah H. Lancaster
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
P. Dewayne Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted from 2003 through 2006 to compare annual grass control by graminicides applied alone or with other pesticides and to determine whether graminicide formulation affected annual grass control and interactions with co-applied pesticides. Formulation and rate had no affect on broadleaf signalgrass or large crabgrass control by clethodim. The efficacy of clethodim in tank mixtures with acifluorfen plus bentazon, bentazon, chlorothalonil, imazapic, pyraclostrobin, or tebuconazole were not affected by clethodim formulation. Broadleaf signalgrass and large crabgrass control by clethodim was slightly reduced by acifluorfen plus bentazon, chlorothalonil, imazapic, and pyraclostrobin, but not by tebuconazole. Chlorothalonil and pyraclostrobin reduced broadleaf signalgrass control with quizalofop-P but did not reduce fall panicum control. Azoxystrobin, propiconazole, and tebuconazole did not affect efficacy of quizalofop-P.

Keywords

Acifluorfenazoxystrobin, methyl (E)-[2-[2-6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl]-3-methoxyacrylatebentazonchlorothalonil, tetrachloroisophthalonitrileclethodimimazapicpropiconazole, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl-methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazolpyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)pyrazol-3-yl]oxymethyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl esterquizalofop-Psethoxydimtebuconazole, α-[2-(4-chlorophenyl)ethyl]-α-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanolbroadleaf signalgrass, Urochloa platyphylla (Nash) R.D. Webster UROPPfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. PANDIlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAAntagonismformulationintegrated pest managementpesticide compatibility
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 580 - 583
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

Baerg, R. J., Gronwald, J. W., Eberlein, C. V., and Stucker, R. E. 1996. Antagonism of diclofop control of wild oat (Avena fatua) by tribenuron. Weed Sci 44:461–468.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. W. and Oliver, L. R. 2004. Cloransulam antagonizes annual grass control with aryloxyphenoxypropionate graminicides but not with cyclohexanediones. Weed Technol 18:763–772.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., and Tredaway-Ducar, J. 2004. Annual grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with clethodim and imazapic. Weed Technol 18:88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Physiological basis for antagonism of clethodim by imazapic on goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 76:37–45.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., Corbin, F. T., and Sheldon, Y. S. 1999. Basis for antagonism in mixtures of bromoxynil plus quizalofop-P applied to yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca). Weed Technol 13:515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental designs and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. in Camper, N. D., editor. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gascho, G. J. and Davis, J. G. 1995. Soil fertility and plant nutrition. Pages 383–418. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., editors. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1995. Comparison of postemergence herbicides for common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 9:825–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Brewer, K. D., and Baughman, T. A. 2002. Grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with clethodim and selected broadleaf herbicide combinations. Peanut Sci 29:85–88.Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H. M., Pitty, A., and Owen, M. D. K. Effect of environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) leaf wax and fluazifop-P absorption. Weed Sci 54:607–614.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. and Coble, H. D. 1990. Compatibility of sethoxydim with five postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol 4:128–133.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1995. Influence of adjuvants on the antagonism of graminicides by broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol 9:741–747.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2007. Weed management in peanuts. Pages 47–74. in. 2007 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service, Series AG-331.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., Grichar, W. J., Tredaway Ducar, J., Brecke, B. J., and York, A. C. 2003. Weed control with combinations of selected fungicides and herbicides applied postemergence to peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci 30:1–7.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Interactions of DPX-PE350 with fluazifop-P, sethoxydim, clethodim, and quizalofop-P. Weed Technol 7:605–610.Google Scholar
Lancaster, S. H., Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Burke, I. C., Corbin, F. T., Sheldon, Y. S., Wilcut, J. W., and Monks, D. W. 2005. Influence of selected fungicides on efficacy of clethodim and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 19:397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, R. E. and Mack, T. P. 1995. Biological and biotechnical advances for insect management in peanut. Pages 95–159. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., editors. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Nandula, V. K., Poston, D. H., Reddy, K. N., and Koger, C. H. 2007. Formulation and adjuvant effects on uptake and translocation of clethodim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci 55:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otis, B. V., Mattice, J. D., and Talbert, R. E. 2005. Determination of antagonism between cyhalofop-butyl and other rice (Oryza sativa) herbicides in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). J. Agric. Food Chem 53:4064–4068.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G. N. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1984. Influence of application variables on antagonism between sethoxydim and bentazon. Weed Sci 32:436–441.Google Scholar
Sherwood, J. L., Beute, M. K., Dickson, D. W., Elliot, V. J., Nelson, R. S., Opperman, C. H., and Shew, B. B. 1995. Biological and biotechnical control in Arachis diseases. Pages 160–206. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., editors. Advances in Peanut Science. Soc. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Shew, B. 2007. Peanut disease management. Pages 94–118. in. 2007 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service, Series AG-331.Google Scholar
Stock, D. and Briggs, G. 2000. Physicochemical properties of adjuvants: values and applications. Weed Technol 14:798–806.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207–224. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., editors. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Zabkiewicz, J. A. 2007. Spray formulation efficacy—holistic and futuristic perspectives. Crop Prot 26:312–319.Google Scholar