Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:01:22.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental effects on CGA-248757 and flumiclorac efficacy/soybean tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason C. Fausey  and
Karen A. Renner
Jason C. Fausey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect temperature, light intensity, time to initial light exposure, relative humidity, and the presence of dew have on CGA-248757 and flumiclorac efficacy was evaluated in laboratory trials. Increasing temperature from 10 to 40 C increased CGA-248757 and flumiclorac activity on common lambsquarters by 79 and 87%, respectively. Similarly, increasing temperature from 10 to 40 C increased CGA-248757 and flumiclorac activity on redroot pigweed by 68 and 60%, respectively. Increasing light intensity from 0 to 1,000 μmol m−2 s−1 increased CGA-248757 activity on common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed by 92 and 93%, while flumiclorac activity increased 91 and 99%. Time to initial light exposure and relative humidity did not affect CGA-248757 or flumiclorac activity on common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed. The presence of dew reduced herbicidal activity of both compounds on common lambsquarters by 5% and redroot pigweed control with CGA-248757 and flumiclorac by 21 and 20%, respectively. Field applications of CGA-248757 or flumiclorac at 6:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., and 10:00 P.M. indicate environmental conditions at application strongly influence soybean tolerance and weed control with CGA-248757 and flumiclorac. The greatest soybean injury occurred from CGA-248757 or flumiclorac applications at 6:00 A.M. compared with applications at 2:00 P.M. or 10:00 P.M. Common lambsquarters control was greatest when CGA-248757 or flumiclorac was applied at 6:00 A.M. or 2:00 P.M. compared with 10:00 P.M. However, redroot pigweed control was greatest when CGA-248757 or flumiclorac was applied at 2:00 P.M. Application time of day did not affect velvetleaf control with either herbicide.

Keywords

CGA-248757, [[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[(tetrahydro-3-oxo-1H,3H-[1,3,4]thiadiazolo[3,4-a]pyridazin-1-ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]aceateflumicloraccommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Conrad’ GLYMAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHApplication timetemperaturerelative humiditylight intensitydew
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 5 , October 2001 , pp. 668 - 674
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

Akey, W. C., Jurik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1990. Competition for light between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 30:403–411.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26:393–395.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T. and Smeda, R. J. 1997. Influence of time of day on glufosinate activity. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:123.Google Scholar
Bjork, K. L., Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1998. The effect of time of day on annual weed control with glyphosate and glufosinate. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:120.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C. 1989. Variations in foliar pesticide performance attributable to humidity, dew, and rain effects. Aspects Appl. Biol. 21:215–225.Google Scholar
Coupland, D. 1983. Influence of light, temperature and humidity on the translocation and activity of glyphosate in Elymus repens (=Agropyron repen). Weed Res. 23:347–355.Google Scholar
Doran, D. L. and Anderson, R. N. 1976. Effectiveness of bentazon applied at various times of day. Weed Sci. 24:567–570.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lydon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr., and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Eckl, K. and Gruler, H. 1980. Phase transitions in plant cuticle. Planta 150:102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, J. C. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Broadleaf weed control in soybean with flumiclorac and CGA-248757 alone and in tank mixtures. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:9.Google Scholar
Flore, J. A. and Bukovac, M. J. 1978. Pesticide effects on the plant cuticle: III. EPTC effects on the qualitative composition of Brassica oleracea L. leaf cuticles. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 103:297–301.Google Scholar
Harr, J., Guggenheim, R., Schulke, G., and Falk, R. H. 1991. The Leaf Surface of Major Weeds. Basel, Switzerland: Sandoz Agro.Google Scholar
Holen, C. D. and Dexter, A. G. 1993. Effect of increased temperature before and after desmedipham application. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:86–87.Google Scholar
Koukkari, W. L. and Johnson, M. A. 1979. Oscillations of leaves of Abutilon theophrasti (velvetleaf) and their sensitivity to bentazon in relation to low and high humidity. Physiol. Plant. 47:158–162.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P., Olsen, T., and Thonke, K. E. 1990. The influence of temperature, humidity and simulated rain on the performance of thiameturonmethyl. Weed Res. 30:261–269.Google Scholar
Lee, H. J. and Duke, S. O. 1994. Protoporphyrinogen IX-oxidizing activities involved in the mode of action of peroxidizing herbicides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42:2610–2618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnum, A. R. and Ries, S. K. 1968. Factors influencing the phytotoxicity and movement of paraquat in quackgrass. Weed Sci. 16:80–83.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Coble, H. D. 1981. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 29:480–485.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Weaver, M. L. and Nylund, R. E. 1963. Factors influencing the tolerance of peas to MCPA. Weed Sci. 11:142–148.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenyl ether herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:19–24.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1981. Effect of environment on the translocation and toxicity of acifluorfen to showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 29:397–401.Google Scholar
Zhou, P. and Ahrens, W. H. 1995. The effect of time of day of application on herbicide efficacy. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:90–91.Google Scholar