Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:04:08.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sweet Corn (Zea mays) Cultivar Sensitivity to AE F130360

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shane Diebold
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada N0P 2C0
Darren Robinson
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada N0P 2C0
John Zandstra
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada N0P 2C0
John O'Sullivan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Simcoe, ON, Canada N3Y 4N5
Peter Sikkema*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: psikkema@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca

Abstract

Eight sweet corn cultivars were evaluated for tolerance to AE F130360 in five field experiments conducted over 2 yr in Ontario. AE F130360 was applied postemergence at 70 and 140 g ai/ha, the latter rate representing a spray overlap in the field. Response to AE F130360 varied with respect to sweet corn cultivar and herbicide rate. Minimal crop injury was observed in seven of the eight cultivars. One cultivar, ‘DelMonte 2038’, was extremely sensitive, showing 94% or more injury for all site-years. Plant height of most cultivars was not negatively affected by AE F130360 treatments, with the exception of DelMonte 2038, which sustained height reductions of 78% or greater compared with the untreated control. The crop injury and height reductions that were observed in DelMonte 2038 were reflected in the marketable yields, which were reduced by 92% or more as a result of the AE F130360 treatments. Marketable yields also tended to be reduced in ‘Calico Belle’ and ‘Rival’. On the basis of marketable yields, it was concluded that ‘CNS 710’, ‘GG 222’, ‘GG 246’, ‘GH 2684’, and ‘Reveille’ have full tolerance to AE F130360, Calico Belle and Rival tend to have moderate tolerance, and DelMonte 2038 has zero tolerance to AE F130360.

Type
Research
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. 2002. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Doohan, D. J., Ivany, J. A., White, R. P., and Thomas, W. 1998. Tolerance of early maturing corn (Zea mays) hybrids to DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 12: 4146.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1998. Differential tolerance of corn (Zea mays) inbreds to four sulfonylurea herbicides and bentazon. Weed Technol. 12: 474477.Google Scholar
Moberg, W. K. and Cross, B. 1990. Herbicides inhibiting branched chain amino acid biosynthesis. Pestic. Sci. 29: 241246.Google Scholar
Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 6: 9196.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1998. Sensitivity of processing sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78: 151154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Brammall, R. A., and Bouw, W. J. 1995. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 5862.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Sikkema, P. H. 2001. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to CGA 152005 postemergence. Weed Technol. 15: 204207.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Sikkema, P. H. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to primisulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 82: 261264.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Sikkema, P. H., and Thomas, R. J. 2000. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to nicosulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80: 419423.Google Scholar
Reidy, M. E. and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Postemergence control of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski) with DPX-79406 in corn (Zea mays). Can. J. Plant Sci. 74: 375381.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., Schultheis, J. R., and Worsham, A. D. 1993. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to application timing of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 840843.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. The SAS System for Windows, Release 8.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and Singh, B. J. 1997. Acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors. In Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA: IOS. pp. 69110.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1992. Sweet corn cultivars respond differentially to the herbicide nicosulfuron. HortScience 27: 131133.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., Elmes, M. J., Murphy, S. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1996. Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 10: 288294.Google Scholar
Widstrom, N. W. and Dowler, C. C. 1995. Sensitivity of selected field corn inbreds (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 779782.Google Scholar