Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:53:10.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Wild Oat (Avena fatua) in Wheat with MKH 6562

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ken J. Kirkland ,
Eric N. Johnson  and
F. Craig Stevenson
Ken J. Kirkland
Affiliation:
RR 1, Vermilion, AB, Canada T9X 1Y6
Eric N. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Scott Research Farm, Box 10, Scott, SK, Canada S0K 4A0
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
206A Dunlop Street, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2B7
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: johnsone@em.agr.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

MKH 6562 is a new acetolactate synthase inhibitor herbicide that would provide an alternative to control wild oat. Three experiments were conducted at Scott, SK, Canada, from 1996 to 1999 to evaluate MKH 6562 rates (20 and 30 g ai/ha), carrier volumes (30, 50, and 100 L/ha), time of applications (two- to three-leaf and three- to four-leaf stages of wild oat), and broadleaf weed herbicide tank mixtures. Reduced wild oat control (lower visual rating of percent control and higher fresh weight) often occurred when MKH 6562 was applied at a rate of 20 vs. 30 g/ha, with carrier volumes of 30 vs. 50 and 100 L/ha, and at the three- to four-leaf vs. two- to three-leaf stages of wild oat. Wild oat control generally was lower for MKH 6562 tank mixed with dicamba + mecoprop + MCPA 1:1:4.4 and bromoxynil + MCPA 1:1 compared with MKH 6562 applied alone or tank mixed with other broadleaf herbicides. MKH 6562 tank mixed with MCPA, and to a lesser extent 2,4-D, resulted in decreased wild oat control when applied at the three- to four-leaf stage of wild oat, but not at the two- to three-leaf stage. Wheat grain yield usually was not affected by MKH 6562 rate and carrier volume. Yield was 7% lower when MKH 6562 was tank mixed with dicamba + mecoprop + MCPA or fluroxypyr + 2,4-D and was 8% lower when MKH 6562 was applied in a mixture with 2,4-D formulations or bromoxynil + MCPA at the three- to four-leaf stage compared with the two- to three-leaf stage. Similar yields were achieved when MKH 6562 was applied alone at both leaf stages of wild oat. Wild oat control and wheat yield with MKH 6562 were as good as or better than with ICIA 0604 and imazamethabenz and were as good as or poorer than with CGA 184927. MKH 6562 provides adequate control of wild oat in wheat when applied early with the recommended carrier volume. Satisfactory control may be achieved with reduced rates if wild oat infestations are light.

Keywords

CGA 184927 (proposed common name, clodinafop-propargyl), 2-propynyl-(R)-2-[4-(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridyloxy)-phenoxy]-propionateMKH 6562 (proposed common name, flucarbazone-sodium), 4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-N-[[2-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]sulfonyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-carboxamideclodinafop-propargyl, (R)-2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy] propanoic acid 5-chloro-8-quinolinoxyacetic acid-1-methylesterICIA 0604 (proposed common name, tralkoxydim), 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-onewheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘CDC Makwa’wild oat, Avena fatua L. #3 AVEFAAcetolactate synthase inhibitorratecarrier volumetiming of applicationtank mixing
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 48 - 55
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

Beckie, H. J., Thomas, A. G., Légère, A. L., Kelner, D. J., Van Acker, R. C., and Meers, S. 1999. Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in small-grain production areas. Weed Technol. 13: 612–625.Google Scholar
Bell, A. R. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1968. Competition of wild oat in wheat and barley. Weed Sci. 16: 505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 1996. Growth stage and broadleaf herbicide effects on CGA184927 efficacy. Weed Technol. 10: 732–737.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Harker, K. N., and Maurice, D. 1996. Response of triallate-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) to alternative herbicides. Weed Technol. 10: 258–262.Google Scholar
Bowden, B. A. and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7: 349–359.Google Scholar
Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1990. Effect of rate, carrier volume and surfactant on imazamethabenz efficacy. Weed Technol. 4: 291–293.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Influence of growth stage and broadleaf herbicides on tralkoxydim activity. Weed Sci. 39: 650–659.Google Scholar
Holm, F. A., Kirkland, K. J., and Stevenson, F. C. 2000. Defining optimum herbicide rates and timing for wild oat control in spring wheat. Weed Technol. 14: 167–175.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Stevenson, F. C., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Resistance of wild oat (Avena fatua) to acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors reflects management practices and inadequate producer awareness of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. In press.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 656 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Alley, H. P. 1987. Weed control and rotational crop response with AC 222,293. Weed Technol. 1: 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, W. A. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1977. Factors affecting MCPA antagonism of diclofop. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:139.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A. and Kirkland, K. J. 1984. Chlorsulfuron reduced the control of wild oat (Avena fatua) with diclofop, difenzoquat, and flamprop. Weed Sci. 32: 285–289.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1978. Interaction between difenzoquat and other herbicides for wild oat and broadleaved weed control in barley. Weed Res. 18: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. Jr., and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11: 384–393.Google Scholar
Santel, H. J., Bowden, B. A., Sorenson, V. M., Mueller, K. H., and Reynolds, J. 1999. Flucarbazone-sodium—a new herbicide for grass control in wheat. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 52: 124–125.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Holm, F. A., and Kirkland, K. J. 2000. Optimizing wild oat control with ICIA 0604. Weed Technol. In press.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Wise, R. F., Frick, B. L., and Juras, L. T. 1996. Saskatchewan weed survey: cereal, oilseed and pulse crops, 1995. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Ser. 96-1. 419 p.Google Scholar