Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T07:19:26.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reducing Imazethapyr Injury to Field Corn (Zea mays) with Naphthalic Anhydride

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Laura D. Boldt
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091
Michael Barrett
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091

Abstract

A field trial was conducted in 1988 and 1989 to confirm the efficacy of naphthalic anhydride (NA) for providing full-season protection of corn from imazethapyr applied at various times and rates. NA applied as a 1% by weight dust to corn seed caused 6% injury 2 weeks after treatment (WAT) in 1989; however, plants recovered within 6 WAT and grain yield was not affected. Imazethapyr applied to corn untreated with NA resulted in greater than 30% injury for all treatments in both years except PRE in 1988. NA reduced phytotoxicity from all imazethapyr applications in 1989 and from PPI, early POST, and 4- to 5-leaf stage (mid-POST) applications in 1988. Despite the safening effect, corn injury was still observed 6 WAT in NA-treated corn for all imazethapyr applications in both years except early POST in 1988. Higher yields were produced from NA-treated than untreated corn with imazethapyr applied PPI in both years, PRE in 1989, early POST in both years, and mid-POST in 1988. Safened corn treated PPI and early POST yielded the same as the safened corn in the control in both years. Imazethapyr applied at the 8- to 10-leaf stage caused total yield loss regardless of NA treatment. Drought conditions may have caused the lower corn injury and yield loss from imazethapyr observed in 1988 compared to 1989.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Anderson, P. C. and Hibberd, K. A. 1985. Evidence for the interaction of an imidazolinone herbicide with leucine, valine, and isoleucine metabolism. Weed Sci. 33:479483.Google Scholar
2. Barrett, M. 1989. Protection of corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) from imazethapyr toxicity with antidotes. Weed Sci. 37:296301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Barrett, M. 1989. Reduction of imazaquin injury to corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with antidotes. Weed Sci. 37:3441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Mills, J. A. 1988. Effects of soybean tillage systems on the efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone. PhD. Dissertation, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
7. Hatzios, K. K. 1983. Effects of CGA-43089 on responses of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to metolachlor combined with ozone or antioxidants. Weed Sci. 31:280284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hatzios, K. K. 1983. Herbicide antidotes: Development, chemistry, mode of action. Adv. Agron. 36:265316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:9095.Google Scholar
10. Shaner, D. L. and Robson, P. A. 1985. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of AC 252 214 in soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon threophrasti). Weed Sci. 33:469471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545546.Google Scholar