Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:30:38.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Shading on Activity of Imazamethabenz and Fenoxaprop in Wild Oat (Avena fatua)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Hai Sheng Xie
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2
Andrew I. Hsiao
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Box 440, Regina, SK, S4P 3A2
William A. Quick
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

Abstract

Growth chamber and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate effects of long-term low-light intensity on wild oat control with imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop. Seventy percent shading imposed during the entire experimental period resulted in enhanced activities for both herbicides applied at early and later growth stages. Such shading also reduced wild oat regrowth following application of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop. When applied to plants exposed to 70 to 90% prespraying shading, both herbicides had phytotoxicity similar to, or better, than plants grown under continuous shading. Postspraying shading has less effect on herbicidal activity than prespraying shading or prolonged shading, especially with imazamethabenz. Full-light treatment more adversely affected fenoxaprop activity than imazamethabenz activity.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Andersson, N. E. 1991. Spectral properties of shading screen materials. Tidsskr. Planteavl 95:345352.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1992. Weed control in field and forage crops. Sask. Agric. Food. Pages 2728, 50.Google Scholar
3. Banting, J. D. 1977. Growth habit and control of wild oats. Agric. Can. Publ. 1531.44 pp.Google Scholar
4. Cole, D. J. 1983. The influence of environmental factors on the metabolism of herbicides in plants. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:245252.Google Scholar
5. Coupland, D. 1987. Influence of environmental factors on the performance of sethoxydim against Elymus repens (L.). Weed Res. 27:329336.Google Scholar
6. Coupland, D., Caseley, J. C., and Simmons, R. C. 1976. The effect of light, temperature and humidity on the control of Avena fatua with difenzoquat. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.-Weeds. 1:4753.Google Scholar
7. Gauvrit, C. and Gaillardon, P. 1991. Effect of low temperatures on 2,4-D behaviour in maize plants. Weed Res. 31:135142.Google Scholar
8. Gerber, H. R., Nyffeler, A., and Green, D. H. 1983. The influence of rainfall, temperature, humidity and light on soil- and foliage-applied herbicides. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:114.Google Scholar
9. Hill, B. D. and Stobbe, E. H. 1978. Effect of light and nutrient levels on 14C-benzoylprop ethyl metabolism and growth inhibition in wild oats (Avena fatua L.). Weed Res. 18:223229.Google Scholar
10. Hull, H. M., Morton, H. L., and Wharrie, J. R. 1975. Environmental influences on cuticle development and resultant foliar penetration. Bot. Rev. 41:421452.Google Scholar
11. 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
12. Meeusen, R. M., Lokey, S. M., and Yih, R. Y. 1983. Effects of environmental factors on the herbicidal activity of acifluorfen. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:253263.Google Scholar
13. Morrison, I. N. 1983. Environmental factors influencing the response of wild oats to herbicides. Pages 6779 in Smith, A. E., ed. Canadian Plains Proc. 12: Wild Oat Symp. Proc. Agric. Can. Google Scholar
14. Norris, R. F. 1987. Interactions between herbicides and light. Proc. 39th Annual California Weed Conf. 39:110113.Google Scholar
15. Pillmoor, J. B. 1985. Influence of temperature on the activity of AC 222,293 against Avena fatua and Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. Weed Res. 25:433442.Google Scholar
16. Pillmoor, J. B. and Caseley, J. C. 1984. The influence of growth stage and foliage or soil application on the activity of AC 222,293 against Alopecurus myosuroides and Avena fatua . Ann. Appl. Biol. 105:517527.Google Scholar
17. Price, C. E. 1983. The effect of environment on foliage uptake and translocation of herbicides. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:157169.Google Scholar
18. Price, C. and Ipor, I. 1992. The influence of sun and shade on herbicide activity and translocation. Proc. 1st Int. Weed Control Congr. 2:403406.Google Scholar
19. SAS Institute, Inc. 1990. Pages 891996 in SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.07. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
20. Sharma, M. P., McBeath, D. K., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1977. Studies on the biology of wild oats. II. Growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:811817.Google Scholar
21. Towers, G. H. N. and Amason, J. T. 1988. Photodynamic herbicides. Weed Technol. 2:545549.Google Scholar
22. 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. 33:283291.Google Scholar