Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:03:40.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Postemergence-Directed Herbicides Control Wild-Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Sweet Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Craig D. Kleppe
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wis., Madison, WI 53706
Robert G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wis., Madison, WI 53706

Abstract

Thirty-six postemergence-directed (PDIR) herbicide treatments, applied with a precision PDIR sprayer, were evaluated for wild-proso millet (PANMI) control in sweet corn field trials in Wisconsin from 1987 to 1990. The performance of butylate and cyanazine (B + C), applied to suppress PANMI early in the season and to provide a height differential between corn and PANMI, greatly influenced PANMI control with PDIR treatments. PDIR treatments controlled PANMI greater than 90% when PANMI was effectively suppressed by B + C, but poor PANMI suppression reduced PDIR herbicide efficacy. Generally, PDIR treatments of paraquat or sethoxydim most effectively controlled PANMI. Paraquat alone at 545 g ha–1 or combined with simazine or sethoxydim at 57 and 114 g ha–1, and sethoxydim at 170 and 227 g ha–1 plus an adjuvant controlled PANMI greater than 95%. PDIR applications of ametryn, linuron, sethoxydim at 57 to 227 g ha–1 alone, sethoxydim at less than 114 g ha–1 plus an adjuvant, and sethoxydim at 114 g ha–1 tank mixed with either of four other herbicides controlled less than 86% of PANMI. Tank mixing a photosynthetic inhibitor or sethoxydim with paraquat did not improve PANMI control compared with paraquat alone. PANMI control with sethoxydim plus an adjuvant at 114 g ha–1 was similar to 227 g ha–1. There was no difference in PANMI control with sethoxydim applied with crop oil concentrate or BCH-815. With the exception of glyphosate at 318 g ha–1 and sethoxydim at 227 g ha–1 plus an adjuvant, PDIR treatments did not injure sweet corn in 1987, 1988, or 1990. However, sethoxydim in 1989 at all rates severely injured corn.

Type
Research
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Black, C. C. Jr. 1985. Effects of herbicides on photosynthesis. p. 136 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology, Vol. II, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
2. Brian, R. C. 1970. Effect of light environment on the activity and behaviour of diquat and paraquat in plants. Pestic. Sci. 1:3841.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:574583.Google Scholar
4. Dortenzio, W. A., and Norris, R. F. 1980. The influence of soil moisture on the foliar activity of diclofop. Weed Sci. 5:534539.Google Scholar
5. Fawcett, J. A., and Harvey, R. G. 1988. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence-directed herbicides. Weed Sci. 36:215220.Google Scholar
6. Harvey, R. G. 1979. Wild proso millet: A serious new weed threat. Crops Soils Mag. 31(2):1013.Google Scholar
7. Harvey, R. G., McNevin, G. R., Albright, J. W., and Kozak, M. E. 1986. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control with thiocarbamate herbicides on previously treated soils. Weed Sci. 34:773780.Google Scholar
8. Harvey, R. G., and Porter, D. J. 1990. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:420424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hayward, D. M., Colby, S. R., and Parham, M. R. 1988. Enhancement of paraquat activity with photosynthetic inhibitors. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 28:5.Google Scholar
10. Headford, D.W.R. 1970. Influence of light on paraquat activity in the tropics. Pestic. Sci. 1:4142.Google Scholar
11. Herbicide Handbook. 1989. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., 6th edit., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
12. Kells, J. J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci. 32:143149.Google Scholar
13. Kidder, D. E., and Behrens, R. 1988. Plant responses to haloxyfop as influenced by water stress. Weed Sci. 36:305312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Kleppe, C. D., and Harvey, R. G. 1989. Tolerance of corn (Zea mays) to sethoxydim applied with precision postemergence-directed sprayer equipment. Weed Technol. 3:663667.Google Scholar
15. Kleppe, C. D., and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence-directed sprayers for wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control. Weed Technol. 5:185193.Google Scholar
16. Mueller, T. C., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. C. 1989. Antagonism of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with fenoxyprop, haloxyfop, and sethoxydim by 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 3:8689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Putnam, A. R., and Ries, S. K. 1967. The synergistic action of herbicide combinations containing paraquat on Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 7:191199.Google Scholar
18. Westra, P., Wilson, R. G., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1990. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in central great plains irrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:409414.Google Scholar