Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:23:49.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of Selected Crops to Isoxaflutole in Soil and Irrigation Water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric A. Nelson  and
Donald Penner
Eric A. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pennerd@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Isoxaflutole, a preemergence herbicide for use in corn, causes bleaching of plant tissue and plant death at low rates. A concern regarding widespread use of isoxaflutole is the unintentional exposure of high-value, minor hectareage crops that may be sensitive. Unintentional exposure could occur because of carryover from a previous application, spray drift, or contamination of irrigation water. The objective of this study was to determine the potential for injury to nine minor hectareage Michigan crops. Crops evaluated were: adzuki bean, alfalfa, carrot, cucumber, dry bean (navy and black beans), onion, sugar beet, and tomato. Experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to evaluate injury from low rates of isoxaflutole applied to soil to simulate carryover as well as low concentrations of isoxaflutole in 2.54 cm of irrigation water applied over the course of 1 h to 15-cm-tall plants. Isoxaflutole rates and concentrations that cause 20% injury (I20) were calculated using Seefeldt's log-logistic dose–response model. Regardless of application type, onion was always the least sensitive plant to isoxaflutole (I20 = 37 g/ha applied to soil and 194 μg/L in irrigation water), whereas navy bean and black bean were the most sensitive (I20 = 9 g/ha applied to soil and 5 μg/ L in irrigation water). The remaining plants exhibited intermediate sensitivity. All of the rates that resulted in injury were substantially less than the rates used for weed control in corn. Carryover from isoxaflutole applications in corn production may require plant back restrictions for certain sensitive crops.

Keywords

Alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.Adzuki bean, Vigna angularis (Willd.)carrot, Daucus carota L. ssp. sativus (Hoffm.) Arcangcucumber, Cucumis sativus L.dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.onion, Allium cepa L.sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L.tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.isoxaflutoleCarryoverresidualcontaminated irrigation water
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 659 - 663
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

Knezevic, S. Z., Sizzema, P. H., Tardiff, F., Hamill, A. S., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of RPA 201772 for preemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:670–676.Google Scholar
Luscombe, B. M. and Pallett, K. E. 1996. Isoxaflutole for weed control in maize. Pestic. Outlook. 29–32.Google Scholar
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2002. Michigan agricultural statistics 2001–2002.Google Scholar
Pallett, K. E., Cramp, S. M., Little, J. P., Veerasekaran, P., Crudace, A. J., and Slater, A. E. 2001. Isoxaflutole: the background to its discovery and the basis of its herbicidal properties. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:133–142.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallett, K. E., Little, J. P., Veerasekaran, P., and Viviani, F. 1997. Inhibition of 4-hydroxyphenol pyruvate dioxygenase: the mode of action of the herbicide RPA 201772 (isoxaflutole). Pestic. Sci. 50:83–84.Google Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Neus, O., Callens, D., and Bulcke, R. 1998. Isoxaflutole herbicide soil persistence and mobility in summer corn and winter wheat crops. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 60:577–584.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999a. Weed control and corn (Zea mays) tolerance from soil-applied RPA 210772. Weed Technol. 13:713–725.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999b. Enhancing margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in corn (Zea mays) with antidotes. Weed Sci. 47:492–497.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999c. Physiological basis for differential corn (Zea mays) tolerance of four corn hybrids to isoxaflutole. Weed Sci. 47:631–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S. and Wax, L. M. 2001. Weed control in field corn (Zea mays) with RPA 201772 combinations with atrazine and s-metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15:249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar