Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:13:22.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Response to CGA-152005, Metsulfuron, and Triasulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ahmet Uludag,
Drew J. Lyon,
Scott J. Nissen and
Stephen D. Kachman
Ahmet Uludag
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Drew J. Lyon
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Science and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Port Collins, CO 80523
Stephen D. Kachman
Affiliation:
Department of Biometry, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0712
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proso millet is a short-season summer annual grass that is well adapted to the central Great Plains. Proso millet is commonly planted as a summer crop when winter wheat stands are lost due to adverse conditions. Sulfonylurea herbicides labeled for use in winter wheat prohibit planting proso millet for intervals up to 10 mo following application. A series of greenhouse and field studies determined proso millet tolerance to CGA-152005, metsulfuron, and triasulfuron soil residue. In the greenhouse, proso millet was not affected by soil-applied CGA-152005 at doses up to 160 g ai/ha, while metsulfuron and triasulfuron doses of 4 and 15 g ai/ha, respectively, inhibited proso millet biomass accumulation. In the field, metsulfuron and triasulfuron caused early season stunting and chlorosis at doses two to four times those recommended; however, grain yields were not affected. Organic matter and clay content were highly correlated with proso millet growth response to the herbicides under greenhouse conditions, but in the field, soil pH may have influenced herbicide bioavailability.

Keywords

CGA-152005, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-ureametsulfuron, methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoatetriasulfuron, 2-(2-chloroethoxy)-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]benzenesulfonamideproso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. emend. ThellSulfonylurea herbicidesOM, organic matterWAE, weeks after emergence

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1997, pp. 138 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Anderson, R. L., and Greb, B. W. 1987. Residual herbicides for weed control in proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Crop Prot. 6:61–63.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994a. Metsulfuron. Ahrens, W. H., ed. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: WSSA. pp. 203–205.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994b. Triasulfuron, In Ahrens, W. H., ed. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: WSSA. pp. 287–289.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. L., and Hopen, H. J. 1985. A comparison of the biology of wild and cultivated proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 33:795–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabouski, P. H., 1971. Selective control of weeds in proso millet with herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:207–209.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr., Cole, A. W., and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Effect of soil type and liming rates on rotational forage crop injury following metsulfuron methyl. Weed Technol. 9:286–293.Google Scholar
Khan, M., and Donald, W. W. 1992. Sulfonylurea herbicides reduce survival and seed production of green and yellow foxtails (Setaria spp.). Weed Technol. 6:284–290.Google Scholar
Kotoula-syka, E., Eleftherohorinos, I. G., Gagianas, A. A., and Sficas, A. G. 1993. Phytotoxicity and persistence of chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron, triasulfuron and tribenuron in three soils. Weed Res. 41:355–367.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J., and Baltensperger, D. D. 1993. Proso millet (P. miliaceum) tolerance to several postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:230–233.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., 1995. Sulfonylurea herbicide effects on following crops. Weed Technol. 9:373–379.Google Scholar
Pool, C. F., and De Villiers, B. L. 1993. Importance of certain soil properties on the activity of imazamethabenz methyl and chlorsulfuron/metsulfuron methyl. Appl. Plant Sci. 7:31–34.Google Scholar
Salisbury, F. B., and Ross, C. W. 1992. Mineral nutrition. In Salisbury, F. B. and Ross, C. W., eds. Plant Physiology. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 116–135.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W., 1986. Chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron carryover in grain and forage sorghum. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 146 p.Google Scholar
Sutherland, P. L., and Long, J. H. Jr., 1987. Comparative tolerance of no-till sorghum and proso millet to soil applied chlorsulfuron as related to cropping interval. Appl. Agric. Res. 2:330–336.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1992 Field Crops Summary, Economic Research Service. Washington, DC: USDA. 118 p.Google Scholar
Walker, A., and Welch, S. J. 1989. The relative movement and persistence m soil of chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl and triasulfuron. Weed Res. 29: 375–383.Google Scholar