Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T05:15:38.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hard Red Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Response to Propanil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephen D. Miller ,
John D. Nalewaja  and
Ian B. Edwards
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
John D. Nalewaja
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Ian B. Edwards
Affiliation:
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., Glyndon, MN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phytotoxicity of postemergence propanil (3′,4′-dichloropropionanilide) to hard red spring (HRS) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was determined in the field and controlled environmental chamber. HRS wheat tolerance to propanil was influenced by cultivar, crop growth stage at time of application, and posttreatment temperature. Injury to wheat from propanil was greater at the five- than two-leaf stage of application and at 30- than at 10- or 20-C posttreatment temperatures. ‘Butte’ wheat was the most susceptible HRS wheat cultivar to propanil, with yield reductions ranging from 15 to 40% depending upon year and crop growth stage at application.

Keywords

Cultivarcrop growth stage
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 191 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Dexter, A. G., Nalewaja, J. D., Rasmusson, D. D., and Buchli, J. 1981. Survey of wild oats and other weeds in North Dakota in 1978 and 1979. North Dakota Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 79. 80 pp.Google Scholar
2. Eberlein, C. V. and Behrens, R. 1980. Environmental influences on wheat tolerance to propanil. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 35:41.Google Scholar
3. Edwards, I. B. and Miller, S. D. 1978. Spring wheat varietal tolerance to application of difenzoquat or MCPA-dicamba. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:57–60.Google Scholar
4. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., and Mulder, C. E. G. 1977. Difenzoquat (Avenge) a new herbicide for wild oat control. N.D. Farm Res. 35:19–21.Google Scholar
5. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., Dobrzanski, A., and Pudelko, J. 1978. Temperature effect on barban phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:132–134.Google Scholar
6. Miller, S. D., Nalewaja, J. D., Pudelko, J., and Adamczewski, K. A. 1978. Difenzoquat for wild oat (Avena fatua L.) control. Weed Sci. 26:571–576.Google Scholar
7. Neidermyer, R. W. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1974. Barban selectivity for wild oat in wheat. Weed Sci. 22:476–480.Google Scholar
8. Smit, H. A. and Joubert, G. D. 1977. An analysis of leaf number and growth point development to determine the correct stage of weed killer application. (Afrikans) J. S. Afr. Soc. Crop Prod. 6:61–65.Google Scholar
9. Winfield, R. J. 1974. Trials for the control of wild oats (Avena spp.) in wheat and barley and on crop tolerance in wheat. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 12:875–882.Google Scholar