Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:09:18.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), Green Foxtail (Setaria virdis), Longspine Sandbur (Cenchrus longispinus), and Large Crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) to Nicosulfuron and Rimsulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

D. Shane Hennigh  and
Kassim Al-Khatib
D. Shane Hennigh
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy, absorption, and translocation of nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron on barnyardgrass, green foxtail, longspine sandbur, and large crabgrass. In the greenhouse, nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron were applied at 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 2 times their label rates of 35, 13, and 26 + 13 g ai ha−1, respectively, on 5- to 10-cm plants. Three weeks after treatment (WAT), barnyardgrass was the most susceptible species to all three herbicides, and large crabgrass was the least susceptible. The nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, or nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron rates causing 50% visible injury (GR50) for barnyardgrass were 10.9, 4.8, and 6 + 3 g ai ha−1, respectively. Similarly, the GR50 for large crabgrass were 25.6, 9.9, and 14.3 + 7.2 g ai ha−1, respectively, 3 WAT. Absorption of nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron was greater in barnyardgrass than in large crabgrass. Absorption of nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron in barnyardgrass and large crabgrass was 74% and 57%, respectively, 7 d after treatment (DAT). In addition, translocation of nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron out of the treated leaf was 14, 12, and 14% higher, respectively, in barnyardgrass than in large crabgrass. The differential response of these weed species to nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and nicosulfuron + rimsulfuron might be due to differences in herbicide absorption and translocation.

Keywords

Nicosulfuronrimsulfuronbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.green foxtail, Setaria virdis (L.) Beauv.large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.longspine sandbur, Cenchrus longispinus (Hack.) FernaldALS-inhibiting herbicidessulfonylurea
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 189 - 194
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

Anonymous 2009. IR-4 Projects. http://ir4.rugert.edu/FoodUse/food_Use2.cfm?PRnum=08604. Accessed: September 11, 2009.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1995. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazethapyr in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci. 43:572–577.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. 2007. Potato and weed response to postemergence-applied halosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and EPTC. Weed Technol. 21:465–469.Google Scholar
Camacho, R. F., Moshier, L. J., Morishita, D. W., and Devlin, D. C. 1991. Rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron and nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 5:789–794.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1997. Physiological basis for nicosulfuron and primisulfuron selectivity in five plant species. Weed Sci. 45:22–30.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, D. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and small flower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628–634.Google Scholar
Damalas, C. A. and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 2001. Dicamba and atrazine antagonism on sulfonylurea herbicides used for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:62–67.Google Scholar
Defelice, M. S. 2002. Green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. Weed Technol. 16:253–257.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. 1989. Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:191–213.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 441.Google Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, K. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 653.Google Scholar
Hsu, F. C. and Kleier, D. A. 1990. Phloem mobility of xenobiotics. III. Sensitivity of unified model to plant parameters and application to patented chemical hybridizing agents. Weed Sci. 38:315–323.Google Scholar
Ivany, J. A. 2002. Control of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and broadleaf weeds and response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 16:261–266.Google Scholar
Kuehl, R. O. 2000. Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. 666.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1980. Barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.] competition and seed production. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 20:5.Google Scholar
Post-Beittenmiller, D. 1996. Biochemistry and molecular biology of wax production in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 47:405–430.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Grey, T. L., and Davis, J. W. 2006. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in irrigated field corn (Zea mays) with foramsulfuron, glyphosate, nicosulfuron, and pendimethalin. Weed Technol. 20:961–964.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. L. and Schafer, D. W. 1997. The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury. 768.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1998. Weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron and metribuzin. Weed Technol. 12:406–409.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Al-Khatib, K., and Dille, J. A. 2007. Mechanism of antagonism of mesotrione on sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 55:429–434.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Al-Khatib, K., and Dille, J. A. 2008. Efficacy of sulfonylurea herbicides when tank mixed with mesotrione. Weed Technol. 22:222–230.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Smith, B. S., Murray, D. S., Green, J. D., Wanyahaya, W. M., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Interference of three annual grasses with grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol. 4:245–249.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Wicks, G. A. 2000. Weeds and their control in sorghum. Pages 535–590. in Smith, C. W. and Fredricksen, R. A. eds. Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Coffin, M. J., and Landholt, L. M. 2003. Weeds of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Depart of Agriculture. 605.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, H., Elmes, M. J., Murphy, S. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1996. Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 10:288–294.Google Scholar
Tapia, L. S., Bauman, T. T., Harvey, R. G., et al. 1997. Postemergence herbicide application timing effects on annual grass control and corn (Zea mays) grain yield. Weed Sci. 45:138–143.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Peterson, D. E., Fick, W. H., Stahlman, P. W., and Wolf, R. E. 2009. 2009. Chemical Weed Control for Field Crops, Pastures, Rangeland, and Noncropland. Report of Progress 1007. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. 124.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2006. Agricultural Chemical Usage, Field Crops Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economics Research Service. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1560. Accessed: June 29, 2009.Google Scholar
Unland, R. D., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 1999. Interactions between imazamox and diphenylethers. Weed Sci. 47:462–466.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. 2001. Acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides on imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Sci. 49:652–657.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:337–382.Google Scholar