Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:59:49.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Simulated Environments Influence Primisulfuron Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Cathy A. Morton
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
R. Gordon Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

Abstract

The influence of hot-dry and cool-moist environments on primisulfuron efficacy on giant foxtail and quackgrass was compared at the University of Wisconsin Biotron. Primisulfuron was applied POST at 20 and 40 g ai ha-1 with nonionic surfactant (NIS) or crop oil concentrate (COC) and with or without 28% nitrogen fertilizer (28% N). Giant foxtail control 3 wk after treatment was not affected by primisulfuron rates or adjuvants. Adding 28% N tended to improve quackgrass control with primisulfuron plus NIS or COC. Primisulfuron was more injurious to both giant foxtail and quackgrass in the cool-moist than the hot-dry environment. Absorption of 14C-primisulfuron into giant foxtail tissue 3 days after treatment (DAT) was greater in the cool-moist than the hot-dry environment Translocation of 14C out of treated leaf of quackgrass 3 DAT was greater in the cool-moist than the hot-dry environment. More 14C was absorbed and translocated in giant foxtail than quackgrass. Absorbed 14C was translocated equally to underground and above treated leaf sections of quackgrass, whereas more 14C was translocated above the treated leaf of giant foxtail.

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. Bauman, T. T., Peregrine, E. K., Irzyk, G. P., and Bustos, J. E. 1988. Efficacy of DPX-V9360 and CGA-136872 plus adjuvants on corn, West Lafayette, Indiana. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 45:413414.Google Scholar
2. Bauman, T. T., Peregrine, E. K., White, D. M., daSilva, J. B., and Guevara, L. D. 1990. Evaluation of DPX-V9360 and CGA-136872 in corn, West Lafayette, Indiana. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 47:278279.Google Scholar
3. Bhowmik, P. C. and Germond, B. J. Sr. 1989. Postemergence quackgrass control in field corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:17.Google Scholar
4. Chase, R. L. and Appleby, A. P. 1979. Effects of humidity and moisture stress on glyphosate control of Cyperus rotundus L. Weed Res. 19:241246.Google Scholar
5. Chernicky, J. P., Bossett, J., and Murphy, T. R. 1984. Factors influencing control of annual grasses with sethoxydim or RO-13-8895. Weed Sci. 32:174177.Google Scholar
6. Coupland, D. 1983. Influence of light, temperature and humidity on translocation and activity of glyphosate in Elymus repens (= Agropyron repens). Weed Res. 23:347355.Google Scholar
7. Doersch, R. E., Flashinski, R. A., and Harvey, R. G. 1990. Field corn herbicide demonstration (Arlington corn). Wisconsin Weed Control Results 20:B 16.Google Scholar
8. Doll, J. D., Kutil, J., and Kraak, S. 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for quackgrass control in corn. Wisconsin Weed Control Results 18: D 916.Google Scholar
9. Doll, J. D., Yenish, J., Visocky, M., and Kraak, S. 1990. Evaluation of new herbicides in corn for quackgrass control. Wisconsin Weed Control Results 20:C 912.Google Scholar
10. Dortenzio, W. A. and Norris, R. F. 1980. The influence of soil moisture on the foliar activity of diclofop. Weed Sci. 28:534539.Google Scholar
11. Eberlein, C. V. and Miller, T. L. 1989. Corn (Zea mays) tolerance and weed control with thiameturon. Weed Technol. 3:255260.Google Scholar
12. Gillespie, G. R., Taylor, T. D., Porpiglia, P. J., and Collins, H. A. 1988. Quackgrass control with CGA-136872. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:18.Google Scholar
13. Grafstrom, L. D. Jr. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1988. Uptake and translocation of fluazifop in green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 36:153158.Google Scholar
14. Harvey, R. G., Morton, C. A., and Kutil, J. L. 1988. Field corn weed control study. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 45:278280.Google Scholar
15. Hess, F. D. and Falk, R. H. 1990. Herbicide deposition on leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 38:280288.Google Scholar
16. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
17. Kapusta, G., Nash, B. L., and Khan, M. 1988. Control of annual and perennial weeds with CGA-136872, DPX-V9360, KIH-2665, and V-63596. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:1920.Google Scholar
18. Kidder, D. W. and Behrens, R. 1988. Plant responses to haloxyfop as influenced by water stress. Weed Sci. 36:305312.Google Scholar
19. Nash, B. L. and Kapusta, G. 1989. Postemergence control of burcucumber and other broadleaf weeds with DPX-V9360 and CGA-136872. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 46:357.Google Scholar
20. Obrigawitch, T. T., Kenyon, W. H., and Kuratle, H. 1990. Effect of application timing on rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with DPX-V9360. Weed Sci. 38:4549.Google Scholar
21. Penner, D. 1989. The impact of adjuvants on herbicide antagonism. Weed Technol. 3:227231.Google Scholar
22. Porpiglia, P. J., Collins, H. A., Peek, J. W., Iwanzik, W., Seiler, A., and Maurer, W. 1988. CGA-136872—A new corn herbicide. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 28:13.Google Scholar
23. Shahi, H. N. 1975. Effect of soil moisture stress on the absorption, translocation and herbicidal efficiency of foliage-applied herbicides. Int. Pest Control 17:1317.Google Scholar
24. Stoltenberg, D. E. and Wyse, D. L. 1986. Regrowth of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) following postemergence applications of haloxyfop and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 34:664668.Google Scholar