Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T16:59:57.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incorporating Foramsulfuron into Annual Weed Control Systems for Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey A. Bunting,
Christy L. Sprague and
Dean E. Riechers
Jeffrey A. Bunting
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Dean E. Riechers
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sprague1@msu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 at Brownstown, DeKalb, Perry, and Urbana, IL, to evaluate weed control and corn tolerance from postemergence (POST) applications of foramsulfuron in sequential and total-POST herbicide programs. Foramsulfuron applied alone controlled giant foxtail, fall panicum, and redroot pigweed 88, 99, and 99%, respectively, 28 d after treatment (DAT), which was comparable with the standard treatment of nicosulfuron. However, control of common cocklebur, velvetleaf, and common lambsquarters was significantly higher with foramsulfuron compared with nicosulfuron. Sequential herbicide programs of atrazine, S-metolachlor, or isoxaflutole applied preemergence (PRE) followed by a POST application of foramsulfuron provided greater than 85% control of giant foxtail, fall panicum, common cocklebur, velvetleaf, common waterhemp, and redroot pigweed. Of the sequential herbicide treatments, atrazine applied PRE followed by a POST application of foramsulfuron provided the greatest Pennsylvania smartweed control. A PRE application of either atrazine or isoxaflutole was needed before a POST application of foramsulfuron to control common lambsquarters. POST tank mixtures of foramsulfuron with atrazine, dicamba, and dicamba plus diflufenzopyr improved control of Pennsylvania smartweed, common cocklebur, velvetleaf, common lambsquarters, and common waterhemp when compared with foramsulfuron applied alone. The tank mixture of foramsulfuron with mesotrione improved control of all species, except Pennsylvania smartweed, common lambsquarters, and common cocklebur. Foramsulfuron tank mixtures with carfentrazone did not improve control of any weed species to commercial acceptance. Adjuvant selection was important for POST tank mixtures. Control of giant foxtail and fall panicum was reduced when atrazine was tank mixed with foramsulfuron and crop oil concentrate (COC). However, when methylated seed oil (MSO) was added to the atrazine–foramsulfuron tank mixture instead of COC, giant foxtail and fall panicum control were similar to foramsulfuron applied alone.

Keywords

Atrazinecarfentrazonedicambadiflufenzopyr, 2-[1-[[[(3,5-difluorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]hydrazono]ethyl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidforamsulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-4-(formylamino)-N,N-dimethylbenzamideisoxaflutolemesotrioneS-metolachlorcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer. # AMATAfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herm. # SETFAPennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pennsylvanicum L. # POLPYredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.Antagonismtank mixturetotal-POSTALS, acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)COC, crop oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentMSO, methylated seed oilNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrate

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005, pp. 160 - 167
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. 2003. Option herbicide specimen label. Bayer CropSciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. Pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. D. 1991. Weed Science. Principles and Practices. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 266–272.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9:356–361.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7:844–850.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E. and Penner, D. 1993. Atrazine reduces primisulfuron transport to meristems of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 41:28–33.Google Scholar
Hoobler, M. A., Allen, J. R., and Effertz, C. J. 2001. Foramsulfuron (AEF130360) herbicide performance in postemergent weed control programs. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 56:221.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekki, M. and Leroux, G. D. 1994. Activity of nicosulfuron, rimisulfuron, and their mixture on field corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and seven weed species. Weed Technol. 8:436–440.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2002. Variable herbicide responses among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop Prot 21:707–712.Google Scholar
Rabaey, T. L., Harvey, R. G., and Albright, J. W. 1996. Herbicide timing and combination strategies for woolly cupgrass control in corn. J. Prod. Agric 9:381–384.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. E. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of soil applied atrazine and pendimethalin on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competitiveness in corn. Weed Technol. 12:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L. and Hager, A. G. 2002. Results on Herbicide Resistance in Illinois: Web page: www.ag.uiuc.edu/cespubs/pest/articles. No. 7. Accessed: July 20, 2003.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M. and Nissen, S. J. 2002. Influence of shade and irrigation on the response of corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and wheat (Triticum aestivum) to carfentrazone-ethyl. Weed Technol. 16:314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. 1989. Johnsongrass (Sorghum bicolor) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:455–458.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Hart, S. E., and Simmons, F. W. 1999. Preemergence weed control in conventional-till corn (Zea mays) with RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13:471–477.Google Scholar