Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:40:07.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet Corn Hybrid Sensitivity to Clopyralid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nader Soltani ,
Shane Diebold ,
Darren E. Robinson  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Shane Diebold
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nsoltani@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Limited information exists on sweet corn tolerance to postemergence (POST) applications of clopyralid under Ontario growing conditions. Eight sweet corn hybrids were evaluated for tolerance to clopyralid in three field experiments conducted in 2001 and 2002 in Ontario. Clopyralid was applied POST at 200 and 400 g ai/ha, the proposed and twice the proposed registered rate for use in sweet corn in Ontario. Sweet corn response to clopyralid did not vary among the hybrids tested. In 2001, visual injury among hybrids 7 d after treatment (DAT) with clopyralid at 400 g/ha was less than 3%. Subsequent visual injury evaluations at 14 and 28 DAT showed no differences among sweet corn hybrids at either rate of clopyralid evaluated. The application of clopyralid at 200 and 400 g/ ha had no detrimental effect on plant height or marketable yield of any of the eight sweet corn hybrids. On the basis of visual injury, height, and marketable yield response ‘Calico Belle’, ‘CNS 710’, ‘DelMonte 2038’, ‘GG 222’, ‘GG 246’, ‘GH 2684’, ‘Reveille’, and ‘Rival’ are all tolerant to the POST application of clopyralid.

Keywords

Clopyralidsweet corn, Zea mays L.Clopyralidherbicide injurysweet cornsensitivitytoleranceDAP, days after plantingDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 342 - 345
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

Anonymous. 2001. Area, Production, and Farm Value of Specified Commercial Vegetable Crops. Ontario, 1998–2001. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Web page: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/index.html. Accessed: August 23, 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Area, Production, and Farm Value of Specified Commercial Vegetable Crops. Ontario, 2002. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Web page: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/index.html. Accessed: August 23, 2004.Google Scholar
Diebold, S., Robinson, D., Zandstra, J., O'Sullivan, J., and Sikkema, P. 2003. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to AE F130360. Weed Technol. 17:127–132.Google Scholar
Diebold, S., Robinson, D., Zandstra, J., O'Sullivan, J., and Sikkema, P. 2004. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to bentazon. Weed Technol. 18:112–117.Google Scholar
Flowers, N. D., Harvey, R. G., Albright, J. W., and Anthon, T. M. 1998. Sweet corn hybrid-clopyralid tolerance study. 1998 Wisconsin weed control results. Volume 28. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture. Pp. D21–D26.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs Publ. 75. Pp. 106–146.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Sikkema, P. 2001. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to CGA 152005 postemergence. Weed Technol. 15:204–207.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Sikkema, P. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to primisulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 82:261–264.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Sikkema, P., and Thomas, R. J. 2000. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to nicosulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:419–423.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Bouw, W. J. 1999. Effect of flumetsulam plus clopyralid soil residues on several vegetable crops and on sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars grown in rotation. Weed Technol. 13:303–307.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Zandstra, J., and Sikkema, P. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol. 16:421–425.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
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 88–91.Google Scholar
Vettakkorumakankav, N. N., Walsh, T. A., and Hall, J. C. 2002. Physiological effect of clopyralid on corn as determined by bioassay and light-scattering spectroscopy. Weed Sci. 50:713–720.Google Scholar