Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T05:07:28.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet Corn Cultivar Sensitivity to Bentazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shane Diebold ,
Darren Robinson ,
John Zandstra ,
John O'Sullivan  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Shane Diebold
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Darren Robinson
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
John Zandstra
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
John O'Sullivan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Simcoe, ON N3Y 4N5, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: psikkema@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five sweet corn cultivars were evaluated for tolerance to bentazon in five field experiments conducted during 2 yr in Ontario. Bentazon was applied postemergence (POST) at 1.08 and 2.16 kg ai/ha, the highest registered rate and twice the highest registered rate, respectively, used in sweet corn in Ontario. When bentazon was applied POST at 1.08 and 2.16 kg/ha to sweet corn cultivar ‘DelMonte 2038’, injury included plant stunting and leaf damage ranging from 6 to 69% and 15 to 90%, respectively. Plant height was reduced to 48 and 100% of the untreated check when treated with bentazon at 1.08 and 2.16 kg/ha, respectively. The visual injury and height reductions were reflected in the marketable yields, which were reduced to 94% when treated with bentazon. Significant reductions in height and marketable yield were not observed in the other four cultivars tested. No correlation was observed between bentazon sensitivity and endosperm genotype. Based on visual injury ratings, sweet corn height, and marketable yield, it was concluded that ‘Calico Belle’, ‘GH 2684’, ‘Reveille’, and ‘Rival’ are tolerant to POST application of bentazon.

Keywords

Bentazonsweet corn, Zea mays L. ‘Calico Belle’, ‘DelMonte 2038’, ‘GH 2684’, ‘Reveille’, ‘Rival’Cultivar toleranceherbicide injuryphotosystem II–inhibiting herbicideDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergence.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 982 - 987
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

Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Responses of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Area, Production, and Farm Value of Specified Commercial Vegetable Crops, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Web page: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/vegsummetric98_01.html. Accessed: February 10, 2003.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002a. Area, Production, and Farm Value of Specified Commercial Vegetable Crops, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Web page: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/vegsummetric02.html. Accessed: February 10, 2003.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002b. Basagran® Forte liquid label. Registration No. 22006. Toronto, ON, Canada: BASF Canada. 4 p.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Barrett, M., and Poneleit, C. G. 1992. Physiological basis for differential bentazon susceptibility among corn (Zea mays) inbreds. Weed Sci. 40:522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Barrett, M., and Poneleit, C. G. 1994. Inheritance of bentazon susceptibility in a corn (Zea mays) line. Weed Sci. 42:641–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. A., Banks, P. A., and Legg, J. G. 1988. Differential response of maize inbreds to bentazon and other herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci 68:501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst, E. P., Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Penner, D. 1986. Herbicide cross-resistance in triazine-resistant biotypes of four species. Weed Sci. 34:344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gohbara, M., Duke, S. O., and Takematsu, T. 1988. MT-5950, a new anilide herbicide, inhibits PS II at a site that slightly overlaps the triazine binding site. Agric. Biol. Chem 52:465–472.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1998. Differential tolerance of corn (Zea mays) inbreds to four sulfonylurea herbicides and bentazon. Weed Technol. 12:474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. and Renner, K. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisfifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank-mixes. Weed Technol. 8:766–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. G. 1991. Bentazon for annual weed control in newly seeded alfalfa. Weed Technol. 5:154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanini, W. T. 1987. Yellow nutsedge control strategies. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf 39:93–95.Google Scholar
Mine, A., Miyakado, M., and Matsunaka, S. 1975. The mechanism of bentazon selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:566–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimbal, C. I., Yerkes, C. A., Weston, L. A., and Weller, S. C. 1996. Herbicidal activity and site of action of the natural product sorgoleone. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 54:73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. 2002. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. The SAS System for Windows, Release 8.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Stephenson, G. R., Dykstra, M. D., McLaren, R. D., and Hamill, A. S. 1990. Agronomic practices influencing triazine-resistant weed distribution in Ontario. Weed Technol. 4:199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, K., Gal, G., and Strickland, B. 1998. Sweet Corn Herbicide Weed Control Study. “1998 Vegetable Report”. College of Agriculture, University of Arizona. Web page: http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/crops/az1101/az1101_7.html. Accessed: January 20, 2004.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar