Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:56:36.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dose–Response Curves of KIH-485 for Preemergence Weed Control in Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stevan Z. Knezevic,
Avishek Datta,
Jon Scott and
Peter J. Porpiglia
Stevan Z. Knezevic*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728
Avishek Datta
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728
Jon Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728
Peter J. Porpiglia
Affiliation:
TyraTech Inc., 1901 S. Harbor City Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sknezevic2@unl.edu.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in Nebraska with the experimental herbicide KIH-485 on soils with three different levels of organic matter (OM) to ascertain a dose response for weed control and corn tolerance. Dose–response curves based on the log-logistic model were used to determine the effective dose that provides 90% weed control (ED90 values) for three grasses (green foxtail, field sandbur, large crabgrass) and two broadleaf weeds (velvetleaf, tall waterhemp). The ED90 values for green foxtail control were 143, 165, and 202 g ai/ha for soils with 1, 2, and 3% OM, respectively at 28 d after treatment (DAT). The highest dose of 371 g ai/ha was needed for field sandbur control at 28 DAT, compared with 141 g ai/ha for large crabgrass, 152 g ai/ha for tall waterhemp, and 199 g ai/ha for velvetleaf. There was no significant corn injury observed. Grain yield increased with increasing doses of KIH-485; optimum yield was achieved at about 195 g ai/ha. From the dose–response curves it is clear that the proposed label rate of KIH-485 of 200 to 300 g ai/ha will provide excellent control of most grasses and certain broadleaf weeds in corn for at least the first 4 wk of the growing season on soils up to 3% OM in the state of Nebraska.

Keywords

KIH-485 (proposed common name pyrasulfatole), 3-[(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethylpyrazol-4-yl)-methylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazolegreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.field sandbur, Cenchrus spinifex Cav.large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.tall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.)velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicuscorn, Zea mays L.Dose–response curveexperimental herbicidecorn weed controlpreemergence

Information

Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009, pp. 34 - 39
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

Anonymous, , 2006. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. National: Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Web page: http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/act_dsp_usage_multiple.cfm. Accessed: May 30, 2008.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Mesotrione, acetochlor, and atrazine for weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 17:284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglin, W. A., Kolpin, D. W., Scribner, E. A., Kuivila, K. M., and Sandstrom, M. W. 2005. Glyphosate, other herbicides, and transformation products in Midwestern streams, 2002. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc 41:323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglin, W. A., Thurman, E. M., Kalkhoff, S. J., and Porter, S. D. 2003. Herbicides and transformation products in surface waters of the Midwestern United States. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc 39:743–756.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci 105:513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, C. D., Bauman, T. T., and White, M. D. 2004. Weed control and soil longevity of KIH-485, acetochlor, dimethenamid, and S-metolachlor. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc 59:63.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W. and Stahlman, P. W. 2004. Comparison of KIH-485 and S-metolachlor in corn. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc 59:72.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Frihauf, J. C. 2006. KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no-tillage corn. Weed Technol 20:622–626.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Palrang, D. T. 2005. Flufenacet and isoxaflutole combinations for weed control and corn (Zea mays) tolerance. Weed Technol 19:891–896.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Colburn, A. E., and Kearney, N. S. 1994. Herbicides for reduced tillage production in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the Southwest. Weed Technol 8:212–216.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2002. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weed Science Society of America: Web page: http://www.weedscience.org/.Google Scholar
King, S. R. and Garcia, J. O. 2008. Annual broadleaf control with KIH-485 in glyphosate-resistant furrow-irrigated corn. Weed Technol 22:420–424.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F., Hamill, A. S., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of RPA 201772 (isoxaflutole) for preemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 12:670–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Streibig, J. C., and Ritz, C. 2007. Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitra, S., Bhowmik, P. C., and Xing, B. 1999. Sorption of isoxaflutole by five different soils varying in physical and chemical properties. Pestic. Sci 55:935–942.Google Scholar
O'Connell, P. J., Harms, C. T., and Allen, J. R. F. 1998. Metolachlor, S-metolachlor and their role within sustainable weed-management. Crop Prot 17:207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porpiglia, P. J., Nakatani, M., and Ueno, R. 2005. KIH-485: a new broad-spectrum herbicide. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 45:314. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Rector, R. J., Regehr, D. L., Barnes, P. L., and Loughin, T. M. 2003. Atrazine, S-metolachlor, and isoxaflutole loss in runoff as affected by rainfall and management. Weed Sci 51:810–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. 2004. First year experiences with KIH-485. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 58:18.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1999. SAS. Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. K., Knezevic, S. Z., Hamill, A. S., Tardif, F. J., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of SAN 1269H (BAS 662H) for weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 13:283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, G. L., Porpiglia, P. J., and Chandler, J. M. 2005. Efficacy of KIH-485 on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and selected broadleaf weeds in corn. Weed Technol 19:866–869.Google Scholar
Watanabe, O., Porpiglia, P. J., Yamaji, Y., and Honda, H. 2006. Residual control with KIH-485. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 46:13. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Wicks, A. G., Knezevic, S. Z., Wilson, R. G., Klein, R. N., and Martin, A. R. 2007. Effect of planting depth and isoxaflutole rate on corn injury in Nebraska. Weed Technol 21:642–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Wicks, G. A., Klein, R. N., Roeth, F. W., Knezevic, S. Z., and Martin, A. R. 1999. Factors affecting isoxaflutole injury to corn in Nebraska: environment. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 4:82.Google Scholar