Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:17:54.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spring Cereal Response to Imazamethabenz and Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl as Influenced by Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Haisheng S. Xie ,
William A. Quick  and
Andrew I. Hsiao
Haisheng S. Xie
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S OA2
William A. Quick
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S OA2
Andrew I. Hsiao
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Box 440, Regina, SK, S4P 3A2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of temperature, soil moisture, and light intensity on the tolerance of spring wheat, durum wheat, and spring barley to imazamethabenz and safened fenoxaprop-p-ethyl was determined in growth chamber experiments. Imazamethabenz at 500 g/ha reduced plant height and shoot fresh weight of durum and spring wheats grown under prolonged 70% shade. The height of durum and spring wheats was reduced by imazamethabenz under a low temperature regime. Compared to the plants grown under standard conditions, the shoot weight of spring and durum wheat plants was not reduced by imazamethabenz under drought, or high and low temperature conditions. Barley tolerance to imazamethabenz was not affected by environment. All three spring cereals were tolerant to fenoxaprop-p-ethyl plus a safener at 92 g/ha; and such tolerance was not greatly affected by various environments examined.

Keywords

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, (R)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]-propanoic acid, ethyl esterimazamethabenz, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-4(and 5)-methylbenzoic acid (3:2), methyl esterbarley, Hordeum vulgare L.durum wheat, Triticum durum L.spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Droughtherbicide tolerancelight intensitytemperatureHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumTriticum durum.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 713 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Bernstein, B., Kirkland, K., and Youmans, C. 1991. Imazamethabenz-methyl herbicide. p. 229–235 in Shaner, D. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
2. Bieringer, H., Bauer, K., Hacker, E., Heubach, G., Leist, K. H., and Ebert, E. 1989. Hoe 70542—a new molecule for use in combination with fenoxaprop-ethyl allowing selective postemergence grass weed control in wheat. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:77–82.Google Scholar
3. Busse, S. R., Kneeshaw, P. G., and Luke, N. 1982. Weed control in cereals with AC 222,293. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 37:18–19.Google Scholar
4. Clay, S. A., Thill, D. C., and Cochran, V. L. 1988. Response of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) to herbicides. Weed Technol. 2:68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Devine, R. M. and Zbiec, I. I. 1990. Wheat tolerance to fenoxaprop-ethyl, a grass herbicide. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:1–5.Google Scholar
6. Efthimiadis, P., Skorda, E. A., and Adamidis, T. 1991. The reaction of cereal cultivars to herbicides in two seasons differing in weather conditions. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 56:727–734.Google Scholar
7. Fawcett, J. A., Harvey, R. G., Arnold, W. E., Bauman, T. T., Eberlein, C. V., Kells, J. J., Moshier, L. J., Slife, R. W., and Wilson, R. G. 1987. Influence of environment on corn (Zea mays) tolerance to sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 35:568–575.Google Scholar
8. Ferreira, K. L., Baker, T. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1990. Factors influencing winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) injury from sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:724–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Heering, D. C. and Peeper, T. F. 1991. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) response to picloram and 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 5:317–320.Google Scholar
10. Jeffcoat, B., Harries, W. N., and Thomas, D. B. 1977. Factors favouring the choice of flamprop-methyl, methyi(±)-2-[N-(3-chloro-4-fluorophenyl)benzamido]propionate for the control of Avena species in wheat. Pestic. Sci. 8:1–12.Google Scholar
11. Lefsurd, C. and Hall, J. C. 1989. Basis for sensitivity differences among crabgrass, oat, and wheat to fenoxaprop-ethyl. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 34:218–227.Google Scholar
12. Lemerle, D., Leys, A. R., Hinkley, R. B., Fisher, J. A., and Cullis, B. 1985. Tolerances of wheat varieties to postemergence wild oat herbicides. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 25:677–682.Google Scholar
13. Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in soil—a review of the literature. p. 191–209 in Shaner, D. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
14. McMullan, P. M. 1990. Temperature effects on barley tolerance to diclofop-methyl and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl mixtures. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:95.Google Scholar
15. McMullan, P. M. 1993. Two-row barley response to diclofop and HOE-6001. Crop Prot. 12:155–159.Google Scholar
16. Miller, S. D. and Alley, H. P. 1987. Weed control and rotational crop response with AC 222,293. Weed Technol. 1:29–33.Google Scholar
17. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., and Dobranski, A. 1984. Temperature effect on difenzoquat phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 32:150–153.Google Scholar
18. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., Dobrzanski, A., and Pudelko, J. 1978. Temperature effect on barban phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:132–134.Google Scholar
19. SAS Institute. 1985. SAS Users' Guide. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, N.C., 5:864–871.Google Scholar
20. Shaner, D. L., Umeda, K., Ciarlante, D. R., and Los, M. 1982. AC 222,293, a new postemergent herbicide for cereals: Greenhouse studies. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:25–31.Google Scholar
21. Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1993. Influence of water deficit on the phytotoxicity of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop among five wild oat populations. Environ. Exp. Bot. 33:283–291.Google Scholar
22. Xie, H. S., Quick, W. A., and Hsiao, A. I. 1994. Effect of drought and formulation on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop. Crop Prot. 13:195–200.Google Scholar
23. Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1994. Effect of shading on activity of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 42:66–69.Google Scholar
24. Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1994. Impact of temperature on the phytotoxicity of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop to wild oat (Avena fatua). Crop Prot. (In press).Google Scholar
25. Yaacoby, T., Hall, J. C., and Stephenson, G. R. 1991. Influence of fenchlorazole-ethyl on the metabolism of fenoxaprop-ethyl in wheat, barley, and crabgrass. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 41:296–304.Google Scholar