Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T14:51:08.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Mesosulfuron Rate and Formulation on Wild Oat (Avena Fatua) Control and Malt Barley Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven R. King
Steven R. King*
Affiliation:
Department of Research Centers, Southern Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Huntley, MT 59037
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sking@montana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in 2005 and 2006 near Huntley, Montana to evaluate two formulations of mesosulfuron-methyl for the control of wild oat in malt barley. The two formulations differed due to the amount of safener, mefenpyr-diethyl, that each contained. Formulation 1 and 2 contained mesosulfuron-methyl and mefenpyr-diethyl at a 1 : 2 and 1 : 6 ratio, respectively. The two formulations were applied alone at two rates or in combination with other small grain herbicides that are typically used for broadleaf weed control. The low and high rate of formulation 1 contained 7.8 and 10.1 g ai/ha of mesosulfuron-methyl and 15.6 and 20.2 g ai/ha of mefenpyr-diethyl, respectively. The low and high rate of formulation 2 contained 2.5 and 3.1 g ai/ha of mesosulfuron-methyl and 15 and 18.6 g ai/ha of mefenpyr-diethyl, respectively. These treatments were compared to a standard treatment of fenoxaprop and a nontreated control. In 2005, formulation 2 applied alone at the low and high rates caused barley injury of 7 and 11% at 21 days after treatment (DAT) and 4 and 7% at 56 DAT, respectively. Applications of formulation 1 caused barley injury that was 9 and 17 percentage points greater at 21 DAT and 12 and 18 percentage points greater at 56 DAT than barley injury from applications of formulation 2 when these herbicides were applied alone at the low and high rate, respectively, in 2005. In both years, formulation 1 applied alone at either rate injured barley more than fenoxaprop at 21 and 56 DAT. In both years, formulation 1 and 2 applied alone controlled wild oat between 85 and 96% at 21 DAT and between 92 and 98% at 56 DAT. Regardless of rate, wild oat control with either formulation was similar to that provided by fenoxaprop at 56 DAT. In 2005 and 2006, barley yield was equivalent between treatments of formulation 1 or 2 and that produced by barley treated with fenoxaprop. No difference in the percentage of plump kernels occurred between treatments of formulation 2 and fenoxaprop. The percentage of plump kernels was reduced 6 to 7 percentage points with treatments containing formulation 1 compared to treatments containing formulation 2. Overall, formulation 2 was effective for the control of wild oat in malt barley. Low levels of malt barley injury occurred with this treatment; however, barley successfully recovered by harvest, and yield and kernel size were equivalent to barley treated with fenoxaprop.

Keywords

mefenpyr-diethyl, [diethyl 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-5-methyl-2-pyrazoline-3, 5-dicarboxylate]mesosulfuron-methyl, [methyl-2-[3-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl]-4-methane-sulfonamidomethylbenzoate]Wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFA, barley, Hordeum vulgare L. HORVX, ‘Moravian 37’Crop tolerancebromoxynilclopyralidfenoxapropfluroxypyrMCPAthifensulfurontribenuron
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 771 - 776
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Allard, R. 1965. Genetic systems associated with colonizing ability in predominately self-pollinated species, Page 49 in Barker, H. and Stebbins, G., eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2002. Mesomaxx Technical Bulletin. Lyon, France Aventis CropScience S. A. 28.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. and Peters, N. C. B. 1976. Competition between wild oat and crops. Pages 99–112. in Jones, D.P. ed. Wild Oats in World Agriculture. London, UK Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Cole, C. M., Mallory-Smith, C. A., Affeldt, R. P., and Colquhoun, J. B. 2004. Reduced wild oat (Avena fatua) control in winter wheat with mesosulfuron-methyl (AE F130060) and broadleaf herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 44:2.Google Scholar
[CPR] Crop Protection Reference 2006. 22nd edition. New York, NY Vance Communication Corporation. 2665.Google Scholar
Gregoire, T. 2006. Herbicide use during cold weather. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/procrop/env/coolhb06.htm. Accessed: December 7, 2006.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2006. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: October 10, 2006.Google Scholar
Howatt, K. A. 2005. Carfentrazone-ethyl injury to spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) is minimized by some ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 19:777–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanns, M. and House, C. C. 2006. USDA Small Grains 2006 Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/SmalGraiSu/SmalGraiSu-09-29-2006.pdf. Accessed: October 10, 2006.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W. and Thill, D. C. 1988. Factors of wild oat (Avena fatua) interference on spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) growth and development in monoculture and mixed culture. Weed Sci. 36:43–48.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Peters, N. C. B. 1982. The response of spring barley and winter wheat to Avena fatua population density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 116:601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 2004. Influence of drought on graminicide phytotoxicity in wild oat (Avena fatua) grown under different temperature and humidity conditions. Plant Growth Regul. 16:233–237.Google Scholar