Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:29:11.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Imidazolinone-Resistant Corn with Imazapic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joyce Tredaway Ducar ,
John W. Wilcut  and
John S. Richburg III
Joyce Tredaway Ducar*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, Berry College, Mt. Berry, GA 30149
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
John S. Richburg III
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jducar@berry.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1992 and 1993 to evaluate imazapic alone and in postemergence (POST) mixtures with atrazine or bentazon for weed control in imidazolinone-resistant corn treated with carbofuran. Nicosulfuron and nicosulfuron plus atrazine also were evaluated. Imazapic at 36 and 72 g ai/ha controlled large crabgrass 85 and 92%, respectively, which was equivalent to control obtained with nicosulfuron plus atrazine. Imazapic at the higher rate controlled large crabgrass better than nicosulfuron alone. Imazapic at 36 and 72 g/ha controlled Texas panicum 88 and 99%, respectively, and at the higher rate control was equivalent to that obtained with nicosulfuron alone or in mixture with atrazine. Imazapic plus bentazon POST controlled Texas panicum less than imazapic at the lower rate applied alone. Redroot pigweed was controlled 100% with all herbicide treatments. Imazapic at either rate alone or in tank mixture with bentazon or atrazine controlled prickly sida >99%, which was superior to control obtained with nicosulfuron or nicosulfuron plus atrazine. Smallflower, entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglories were controlled 96% or greater with all herbicide treatments except nicosulfuron alone. Sicklepod control was >88% with all imazapic treatments, whereas control from nicosulfuron alone was 72%. Corn yields were improved by the addition of POST herbicides with no differences among POST herbicide treatments.

Keywords

Atrazinebentazoncarbofuran, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranylmethylcarbamateimazapicnicosulfuronentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Grayivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. #3 IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis L. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia Irwin and Barneby (L.) # CASOBsmallflower morningglory, Jacquemontia tamnifolia Griseb. # IAQTAtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth. # PHBPUTexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3343IR’Imidazolinone-resistant cornALS, acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)IR, imidazolinone resistantPOST, postemergence.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1018 - 1022
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

Currie, R. S., Kwon, C. S., and Penner, D. 1995. Magnitude of imazethapyr resistance of corn (Zea mays) hybrids with altered acetolactate synthase. Weed Sci. 43:578–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, R. S. and Regehr, D. L. 1995. Methods of measuring the impact of the XA17 gene on imazethapyr injury in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:676–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1994. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 47:279–299.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Greaves, J. A., Rufener, G. K., Chang, M. T., and Koehler, P. H. 1993. Development of resistance to Pursuit herbicide—the IT gene. Report of the 48th Corn and Sorghum Research conference. Pp. 109–118.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1998. Total postemergence weed control in imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newhouse, K., Wang, T., and Anderson, P. 1991. Imidazolinon-tolerant crops. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 139–150.Google ScholarPubMed
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. R. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Eastin, E. F. 1993. Weed control and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response to nicosulfuron and bentazon alone and in mixture. Weed Sci. 41:615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wiley, G. R. 1995. AC 263,222 and imazethapyr rates and mixtures for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:801–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Bascomb, N. F., and Smith, W. 1996. Imidazolinone-resistant crops: selectivity, characterization, and management. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 143–157.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
Tweedy, M. J. and Kapusta, G. 1995. Nicosulfuron and primisulfuron eradicated rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in corn (Zea mays) in three years. Weed Technol. 9:748–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Acreage: Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0603.pdf. Accessed: December 5, 2003.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1995. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Lewis. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Eastin, E. F., Wiley, G. R., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Newell, S. 1994. Imazethapyr and paraquat systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 42:601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1999. Response of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays) to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 13:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G. R., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 44:615–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar