Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:17:13.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Sweet Corn (Zea mays) Cultivars to Nicosulfuron plus Rimsulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John O'Sullivan ,
Ronald A. Brammall  and
William J. Bouw
John O'Sullivan
Affiliation:
Hortic. Exp. Stn., Simcoe, ON, Canada N3Y 4N5
Ronald A. Brammall
Affiliation:
Hortic. Exp. Stn., Simcoe, ON, Canada N3Y 4N5
William J. Bouw
Affiliation:
Hortic. Exp. Stn., Simcoe, ON, Canada N3Y 4N5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sixteen sweet corn cultivars, representing a range of endosperm genotypes, were evaluated to determine cultivar tolerance to nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron in greenhouse and field studies conducted over a two-year period. Response to nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron varied widely, depending on cultivar and application rate. In the field, four cultivars were tolerant to applications of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron at rates of 50 g/ha. In the greenhouse, eight cultivars were tolerant to nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron at 25 g/ha. ‘Merit’ and ‘Silver Extra Sweet’ were most sensitive, with applications of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron resulting in death of all plants. ‘Miracle,’ ‘Extra Early Super Sweet,’ ‘Bunker Hill,’ and ‘Sweet Belle’ were tolerant.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamiderimsulfuron, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamidesweet corn, Zea mays L.Cultivarsherbicide injurypostemergencesulfonylurea
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 58 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Bhowmik, P. C., O'Toole, B. M., and Andaloro, J. 1992. Effects of nicosulfuron on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:52–56.Google Scholar
2. Burton, J. D., Maness, E. M., Monks, D. W., and Robinson, D. K. 1992. Differential tolerance of Landmark and Merit sweet corn is due to different rates of metabolism. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 32:91.Google Scholar
3. Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. E.I. DuPont Nemours and Company. 1989. Technical Information—DPX 79406. E.I. duPont Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE. 6 p.Google Scholar
5. Eberlein, C. V., Rosow, K. M., Greadelmann, J. L., and Openshaw, S. J. 1989. Differential tolerance of corn genotypes to DPX-M6316. Weed Sci. 37:651–657.Google Scholar
6. Green, J. M. and Ulrich, J. F. 1993. Response of corn (Zea mays L.) inbreds and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 41:508–516.Google Scholar
7. Monks, D. W., Mullins, C. A., and Johnson, K. E. 1992. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:280–283.Google Scholar
8. Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:91–96.Google Scholar
9. Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1993. In-furrow terbufos reduces field and sweet corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:934–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. O'Sullivan, J., Bouw, W. J., and Megens, A. 1992. Proso millet control in sweet corn. Abstr. Exp. Comm. on Weeds, Res. Rep. (East. Sect.), 1:212–213.Google Scholar
11. Palm, H. L., Liang, P. H., Fuesler, T. P., Leek, G. L., Strachan, S. D., and Wittenbach, V. A. 1989. New low-rate sulfonylureas for postemergence weed control in corn. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.: Weeds 1:23–28.Google Scholar
12. 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. 7:840–843.Google Scholar
13. Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1992. Sweet corn cultivars respond differently to the herbicide nicosulfuron. HortScience 27:131–133.Google Scholar
14. Styer, R. C. and Cantliffe, D. J. 1983. Changes in seed structure and composition during development and their effects on leakage in two endosperm mutants of sweet corn. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 108:721–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar