Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T11:28:28.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays) with an Imazethapyr Plus Imazapyr Prepackaged Mixture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason A. Bond  and
James L. Griffin
Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jbond@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pendimethalin plus atrazine (1,120 + 2,240 g ai/ha) or metolachlor plus atrazine (2,170 + 1,790 g ai/ha) applied PRE over 2 yr controlled broadleaf signalgrass and itchgrass 78 to 88% 30 d after treatment (DAT). The imazethapyr plus imazapyr prepackaged mixture (PREMIX) applied PRE at 47 + 16 g ai/ha controlled these weeds no more than 35%. With pendimethalin, metolachlor plus atrazine, or atrazine PRE followed by (fb) imazethapyr plus imazapyr POST, broadleaf signalgrass was controlled 89 to 98% and itchgrass 76 to 83% 28 d after POST application. When only imazethapyr plus imazapyr was applied POST, broadleaf signalgrass control was 88% the first year, but only 64% the second year. Itchgrass was controlled 71% when imazethapyr plus imazapyr was applied alone POST, but control was nearly 86% when pendimethalin or nicosulfuron was applied POST with imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Consistently high corn yields were obtained when pendimethalin was applied POST with imazethapyr plus imazapyr, and these corn yields were greater than those following POST-only applications of imazethapyr plus imazapyr in 1 of 2 yr. When imazethapyr plus imazapyr was applied alone POST, corn yield was at least 1.3 times that when imazethapyr plus imazapyr was applied alone PRE. Weed control with imazethapyr plus imazapyr POST at 47 + 16 g/ha was not improved when ammonium sulfate was added with nonionionic surfactant or when methylated seed oil with or without ammonium sulfate or organosilicone adjuvants were used in the spray solution compared with using only nonionic surfactant in the spray solution. When imazethapyr plus imazapyr plus the various adjuvants was applied to weeds 5 to 8 cm tall, broadleaf signalgrass was controlled 93%, itchgrass 74 and 88%, and pitted morningglory 87 and 93% 28 DAT over 2 yr.

Keywords

Atrazineimazapyrimazethapyrmetolachlornicosulfuronpendimethalinbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griesb.) Nash # BRAPPitchgrass, Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) W. D. Clayton # ROOEXpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3395 IR.’Adjuvantsapplication timingherbicide combinationsimidazolinone-resistant corntank mixtureDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byIR, imidazolinone-resistantLPOST, late postemergencePREMIX, prepackaged mixture
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 992 - 998
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.)

Footnotes

1 Publication 05-61-0162, Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter.
Current address: Louisiana State University AgCenter Rice Research Station, 1373 Caffey Road, Rayne, LA 70578.

References

Literature Cited

Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Use of mixtures of mesotrione, imazethapyr, and imazethapyr plus imazapyr in imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 17:674–679.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Tolerance of imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays) to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 17:60–64.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Bode, L. E. 1992. Quizalofop and sethoxydim activity as affected by adjuvants and ammonium fertilizers. Weed Sci. 40:12–19.Google Scholar
Begna, S. H., Hamilton, R. I., Dwyer, L. M., Stewart, D. W., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., Foroutan-Pour, K., and Smith, D. L. 2001. Weed biomass production response to plant spacing and corn (Zea mays) hybrids differing in canopy architecture. Weed Technol. 15:647–653.Google Scholar
Bridgemohan, P. and Brathwaite, R. A. I. 1989. Weed management strategies for the control of Rottboellia cochinchinensis in maize in Trinidad. Weed Res. 29:433–440.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effects of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 44:797–803.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. A. 1993. Imidazolinone resistant and tolerant corn. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:41.Google Scholar
Fielding, R. J. and Stoller, E. W. 1990. Effects of additives on efficacy, uptake, and translocation of chlorimuron ethyl ester. Weed Technol. 4:264–271.Google Scholar
Fisher, H. H., Lopez, F., Margate, L., Elliot, P., and Burril, L. 1985. Problems in control of Rottboellia exaltata L. f. in maize in Bukidnon Province, Mindanao, Philippines. Weed Res. 25:93–102.Google Scholar
Greaves, J. A., Rufener, G. K., Chang, M. T., and Koehler, P. H. 1993. Development of Resistance to Pursuit Herbicide in Corn: The IT Gene. Report of the 48th Corn and Sorghum Research conference. Pp. 109–118.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, W. G., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Nicosulfuron, primisulfuron, imazethapyr, and DPX-PE350 injury to succeeding crops. Weed Technol. 7:641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Li, J., and Wait, J. D. 2003. Johnsongrass control, total nonstructural carbohydrates in rhizomes, and regrowth after application of herbicides used in herbicide-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 17:36–41.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., and Corbin, F. T. 1989. Effect of ammonium sulfate and bentazon on sethoxydim absorption. Weed Technol. 3:674–677.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G., Krausz, R. F., Khan, M., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Effect of nicosulfuron rate, adjuvant, and weed size on annual weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:696–702.Google Scholar
Kent, L. M., Wills, G. D., and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Effect of ammonium sulfate, imazapyr, and environment on the phytotoxicity of imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R. C. 1993. Use and mode of action of adjuvants for herbicides: a review of some current work. Pestic. Sci. 38:93–102.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1998. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control and rainfastness with glyphosate and adjuvants. Weed Technol. 12:617–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Hayes, R. M. 1997. Effect of tillage and soil-applied herbicides on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:698–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newhouse, K. E., Singh, B. K., Shaner, D. L., and Stidham, M. A. 1991. Mutations in corn (Zea mays L.) conferring resistance to imidazolinone herbicides. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:65–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:371–378.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2002. SAS User's Guide. Release 9.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. and Zelaya, O. 1986. Competition and control of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in maize (Zea mays). Trop. Pest. Manag. 32:101–104.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Hart, S. E. 1997. Preemergence broadleaf weed control and crop tolerance in imidazolinone-resistant and susceptible corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, C. L. and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Broadleaf signalgrass management systems in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:226.Google Scholar
Strahan, R. E., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., and Miller, D. K. 2000a. Interference between Rottboellia cochinchinensis and Zea mays . Weed Sci. 48:205–211.Google Scholar
Strahan, R. E., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Miller, D. K. 2000b. Influence of adjuvants on itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 14:66–71.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996. Adjuvant effects on imazethapyr, 2,4-D, and picloram absorption by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 44:469–475.Google Scholar
Willingham, G. L. and Graham, L. L. 1988. Influence of environmental factors and adjuvants on foliar penetration of acifluorfen in velvetleaf: An analysis using the factorial design. Weed Sci. 36:824–829.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1985. Effect of inorganic salts on the toxicity and translocation of glyphosate and MSMA in purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 33:755–761.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1987. Influence of inorganic salts and imazapyr on control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) with imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 1:328–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, B. G. and Hart, S. E. 1998. Optimizing foliar activity of isoxaflutole on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) with various adjuvants. Weed Sci. 46:397–402.Google Scholar