Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:05:13.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Sweet Corn (Zea mays) to Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David W. Monks ,
Charles A. Mullins  and
Kenneth E. Johnson
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Charles A. Mullins
Affiliation:
Plant Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Kenneth E. Johnson
Affiliation:
Plant Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eight sweet corn cultivars differed in response to 35 g ai ha–1 nicosulfuron or 42 g ai ha–1 primisulfuron. ‘Merit’ sweet corn was killed 4 wk after nicosulfuron or primisulfuron application. Nicosulfuron and primisulfuron reduced height of Merit, 'Silver Queen’, 'Silverado’ and ‘How Sweet It Is'. Ear number of How Sweet It Is, ‘Pinnacle’ and Silverado was reduced by primisulfuron. ‘Landmark’, Silver Queen, and 'Sweetie 76’ were the most tolerant cultivars to nicosulfuron and primisulfuron with yield similar to that of the control.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis-(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidsweet corn, Zea mays L.Postemergenceherbicide injurycultivarsheight
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 280 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 1973. Maize dwarf mosaic. p. 61 in Shurtleff, M. C., ed. Compendium of corn diseases. Am. Phytopathol. Soc., St. Paul, Minn. 105 p. Google Scholar
2. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 1990. Beacon product manual. Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C. 4 p.Google Scholar
3. E. I. du Pont Nemours and Company. 1990. Accent product manual. E. I. du Pont Nemours and Company. Wilmington, Del. 5 p.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1987. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:395–410.Google Scholar
5. Locke, J. M., Chandler, J. M., and Holshouser, D. L. 1989. Corn and johnsongrass response to sulfonyl urea herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:52.Google Scholar
6. Monks, D. W., and Johnson, K. E. 1989. Sweet corn response to Accent (DPX-V9360) and Beacon (CGA-136872). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:155.Google Scholar
7. Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effect of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn (Zea mays) under three environments. Weed Technol. 5:130–136.Google Scholar
8. Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1990. Tolerance variability among sweet corn cultivars to DPX-V9360. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:170.Google Scholar
9. Welch, A. W. 1991. Status of sweet corn varietal tolerance to nicosulfuron. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:204.Google Scholar