Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:24:12.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of four canola populations to ethametsulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas M. Wolf and
Kevin C. Falk
Kevin C. Falk
Affiliation:
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of ethametsulfuron on populations of canola was evaluated in field and laboratory trials. Three canola populations (TR4, CB9604, and BC86-18) and the open-pollinated canola cv. ‘AC Parkland’ were treated with several doses of ethametsulfuron at the two- to four-leaf stage. In the field experiment, plant densities were determined before spraying and again at plant maturity. Density reductions during the growing season were observed for all populations (6 to 17%), but reductions due to ethametsulfuron above 0.3 g ha−1 depended on year, being noted for TR4 in 1997 (40 to 65%) only. In laboratory trials, only TR4 demonstrated sensitivity to ethametsulfuron, up to 49% visual damage averaged over all plants. The response was binary, with about 40% of plants at any given herbicide rate surviving unharmed and the remaining 60% of plants exhibiting > 90% visual damage. It is concluded that TR4 is sensitive to ethametsulfuron and further work, including a comprehensive genetic study, is required to determine the inheritance of sensitivity.

Keywords

Ethametsulfuroncanola, Brassica rapa L.Herbicide tolerancestand reduction

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , June 2005, pp. 337 - 341
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Angadi, S. V., Cutforth, H. W., McConkey, B. G., and Gan, Y. 2003. Yield adjustment by canola grown at different plant populations under semiarid conditions. Crop Sci 43:1358–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. Guide to Crop Protection. Regina: Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food, and Rural Revitalization. 353 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Derksen, D. A. 1992. Response of cultivated mustard species to DPX-A7881. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 1992. Combined postemergence grass and broadleaf weed control in canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol 6:892–897.Google Scholar
Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci 29:263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, F. S., Swanton, C. J., and Gillespie, T. J. 1990. Differential response of selected species of brassicaceae to DPX-A7881. Can. J. Plant Sci 70:873–877.Google Scholar
Falk, K. C. and Stoenescu, F. M. 1996. Hysyn100 summer turnip rape. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:127–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. C., Swanton, C. J., and Devine, M. D. 1992. Physiological and biochemical investigation of the selectivity of ethametsulfuron in commercial brown mustard and wild mustard. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 42:188–195.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Kirkland, K. J. 1995. Ethametsulfuron interactions with grass herbicides on canola (Brassica napus, B. rapa). Weed Technol 9:91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcheson, D. S., Falk, K. C., and Rakow, G. F. W. 2000. TR4 summer turnip rape. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:837–838.Google Scholar
Jeffers, G. M., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hall, L. M. 1996. Wild mustard (Brassica kaber) resistance to ethametsulfuron but not to other herbicides. Weed Technol 10:847–850.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Genstat 5 Committee, Statistical Department, Rothamstead Experimental Research Station, Harpenden, Herfordshire. Oxford, U.K: Clarenden.Google Scholar
Lichtner, F. T., Dietrich, R. F., and Brown, H. M. 1995. Ethametsulfuron methyl metabolism and crop selectivity in spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus L). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 52:12–24.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, D. I. 1987. Effect of plant density on development and yield of rapeseed and its significance to recovery from hail injury. Can. J. Plant Sci 67:43–51.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. 1984. Canola Growers Manual. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Canola Council of Canada. 810 p.Google Scholar
Veldhuis, L. J., Hall, L. M., O'Donovan, J. T., Dyer, W., and Hall, J. C. 2000. Metabolism-based resistance of a wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) biotype to ethametsulfuron. J. Agric. Food Chem 48:2986–2990.Google Scholar
Woods, D. L. 1995. AC Sunshine summer turnip rape. Can. J. Plant Sci 75:467–468.Google Scholar