Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:58:43.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inbred Corn Response to Acetamide Herbicides as Affected by Safeners and Microencapsulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark L. Bernards ,
Joseph T. Simmons ,
Corey J. Guza ,
Crystal R. Schulz ,
Donald Penner  and
James J. Kells
Mark L. Bernards
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Joseph T. Simmons
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Corey J. Guza
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Crystal R. Schulz
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kells@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corn inbreds are often more sensitive to herbicides than hybrids. Field experiments were conducted with three corn inbreds to (1) evaluate inbred sensitivity to the acetamide herbicides acetochlor, dimethenamid, flufenacet, and metolachlor, (2) compare the effects of various crop safeners in combination with acetochlor and metolachlor, and (3) measure the effect of herbicide microencapsulation on acetochlor injury. Herbicides were applied preemergence at the registered rate and at two, three, or four times the registered rate in corn. Injury ratings, plant population, and the percentage of plants showing acetamide injury symptoms were used to measure herbicide effect. The inbreds ‘Mo17’ and ‘Great Lakes 15’ (GL15) were sensitive to acetamide injury. Reductions in plant population and increases in the injury rating and the percentage of injured plants were caused by acetochlor, dimethenamid, flufenacet, metolachlor, and flufenacet + metribuzin when applied at three times the registered rate. The inbred ‘B73’ was not injured. The safeners benoxacor and dichlormid reduced injury caused by metolachlor. The percentage of plants injured by metolachlor 15 days after treatment (DAT) was lower when benoxacor was the safener compared to dichlormid. By 28 DAT, plants treated with safeners recovered from injury, and there were no differences between the treatments. The safeners dichlormid and furilazole reduced, but did not always eliminate, injury caused by acetochlor applied at three times the registered rate. Microencapsulation of acetochlor reduced injury to GL15. When the safeners dichlormid or furilazole were included in an acetochlor formulation, microencapsulation did not further reduce corn injury.

Keywords

Acetochlorbenoxacordichlormiddimethenamidflufenacetfurilazolemetolachlormetribuzincorn, Zea mays L.Controlled release formulationherbicide antidotemicroencapsulationsafenerDAT, days after treatmentGL15, ‘Great Lakes 15’
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 458 - 465
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: University of Nebraska– Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583.
Current address: Kellogg Biological Station, 3700 East Gull Lake Drive, Hickory Corners, MI 49060.
Current address: Michigan Sugar Company, 725 South Almer Street, Caro, MI 48723.
Current address: Michigan Corn Office, 12800 Escanaba Drive, Suite B, DeWitt, MI 48820.

References

Literature Cited

Bloomberg, J. R., Ackerman, R. H., Cobia, L. R., and Lin, H. 1998. 1997 EUP results for BAY FOE 5043 plus metribuzin in corn and soybeans. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51:96.Google Scholar
Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4:279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boldt, L. D. and Barrett, M. 1989. Factors in alachlor and metolachlor injury to corn (Zea mays) seedlings. Weed Technol. 3:303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breaux, E. J. 1987. Initial metabolism of acetochlor in tolerant and susceptible seedlings. Weed Sci. 35:463–468.Google Scholar
Cottingham, C. K. and Hatzios, K. K. 1992. Basis of differential tolerance of two corn hybrids (Zea mays) to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 40:359–363.Google Scholar
Dailey, O. D. Jr. and Dowler, C. C. 1998. Polymeric microcapsules of cyanazine: preparation and evaluation of efficacy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46:3823–3827.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C., Daily, O. D. Jr., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1999. Polymeric microcapsules of alachlor and metolachlor: preparation and evaluation of controlled-release properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47:2908–2913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, G. F., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Felsot, A. S. 1992. Movement of alachlor and metribuzin from controlled release formulations in a sandy soil. Weed Sci. 40:606–613.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1997. SAN 582, alachlor, and metolachlor control triazine-resistant (TR) smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:623–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Irzyk, G. P., Miller, K. D., McFarland, J. E., and Eberlein, C. V. 1995. Mechanism of action of the herbicide safener benoxacor in maize. Pestic. Sci. 43:242–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. 1995. Herbicide reduction in metribuzin-based weed control programs in corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:927–933.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. 1984. Interactions between selected herbicides and protectants on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:51–58.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. 1989. Development of herbicide safeners: industrial and university perspectives. in Hatzios, K. K. and Hoagland, R. E., eds. Crop Safeners for Herbicides. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 3–45.Google Scholar
Hoffman, O. L. 1962. Chemical seed treatments as herbicide antidotes. Weeds 10:322–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketchersid, M. L., Norton, K., and Merkle, M. G. 1981. Influence of soil moisture on the safening effect of CGA-43089 in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 29:281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotoula-Syka, E., Hatzios, K. K., and Meredith, S. A. 1996. Interactions between SAN 582H and selected safeners on grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:299–304.Google Scholar
Lay, M-M., Hubbell, J. P., and Casida, J. E. 1975. Dichloroacetamide antidotes for thiocarbamate herbicides: Mode of action. Science 189:287–289.Google Scholar
Leavitt, J. R. C. and Penner, D. 1978a. Protection of corn from acetanilide herbicide injury with the antidote R25788. Weed Sci. 26:653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, J. R. C. and Penner, D. 1978b. In vitro conjugation of glutathione and other thiols with acetanilide herbicides and EPTC sulfoxide and the action of the herbicide antidote R-25788. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:533–536.Google Scholar
Leif, J. W., Burnside, O. C., and Martin, A. R. 1987. Efficacy of CGA-92194 and flurazole in protecting grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) from herbicide injury. Weed Sci. 35:547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. R. and Burnside, O. C. 1982. Protecting corn (Zea mays) from herbicide injury with R-25788. Weed Sci. 30:269–272.Google Scholar
Narsaiah, D. B. and Harvey, R. G. 1977. Differential responses of corn inbreds and hybrids to alachlor. Crop Sci. 17:657–659.Google Scholar
O'Connell, K. M., Breaux, E. J., and Fraley, R. T. 1988. Different rates of metabolism of two chloroacetanilide herbicides in Pioneer 3320 corn. Plant Physiol. 86:359–363.Google Scholar
Riggle, B. D. and Penner, D. 1989. Controlled release as a factor for protection of crop species from herbicide injury. in Hatzios, K. K. and Hoagland, R. E., eds. Crop Safeners for Herbicides. San Diego, CA: Academic. Pp. 283–298.Google Scholar
Rowe, L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1991. Efficacy and mode of action of CGA-154281, a protectant for corn (Zea mays) from metolachlor injury. Weed Sci. 39:78–82.Google Scholar
Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetanilide injury to corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:904–906.Google Scholar
Rowe, L., Rossman, E., and Penner, D. 1990. Differential response of corn hybrids and inbreds to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 38:563–566.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Enhancing the margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in Zea mays with antidotes. Weed Sci. 47:492–497.Google Scholar
Vasilakoglou, I. B. and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 1997. Activity, adsorption, mobility, efficacy, and persistence of alachlor as influenced by formulation. Weed Sci. 45:579–584.Google Scholar
Vasilakoglou, I. B., Eleftherohorinos, I. G., and Dhima, K. B. 2001. Activity, adsorption and mobility of three acetanilide and two new amide herbicides. Weed Res. 41:535–546.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Viger, P. R., Eberlein, C. V., and Fuerst, E. P. 1991a. Influence of available soil water content, temperature, and CGA-154281 on metolachlor injury to corn. Weed Sci. 39:227–231.Google Scholar
Viger, P. R., Eberlein, C. V., Fuerst, E. P., and Gronwald, J. W. 1991b. Effects of CGA-154281 and temperature on metolachlor absorption and metabolism, glutathione content, and glutathione-S-transferase activity in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39:324–328.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Yang, W., and Liu, W. 1999. Adsorption of acetanilide herbicides on soils and its correlation with soil properties. Pestic. Sci. 55:1103–1108.Google Scholar
Winkle, M. E., Leavitt, J. R. C., and Burnside, O. C. 1980. Acetanilide-antidote combinations for weed control in corn and sorghum. Weed Sci. 38:699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar