Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T10:33:59.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Postemergence Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis) Control in Corn (Zea mays) in Western Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Patrick M. McMullan
Affiliation:
Brandon, MB R7A 5Y3 and Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Brandon, MB R7A 5Y3 and Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1

Abstract

Field research was conducted to determine the effectiveness of DPX-79406 (a 1:1 mixture of nicosulfuron and rimsulfuron) for green foxtail control in field corn. Green foxtail control was similar when DPX-79406 was applied postemergence compared to preplant incorporated EPTC/dichlormid or metolachlor. DPX-79406 gave similar green foxtail control to that of cyanazine and better control than inter-row cultivation following soil-applied herbicides. Green foxtail control was greatest when DPX-79406 was applied at the one- to two-tiller stage compared to the one- to two-leaf stage, suggesting that green foxtail is more susceptible to DPX-79406 at later growth stages. DPX-79406 injured ‘Pioneer 3995’ corn in all trials but injured ‘Pride K020’ corn in only one treatment. DPX-79406 between 15 and 25 g ai/ha gave 85% control of green foxtail with minimal corn injury. Adjuvants tended to increase both corn injury and green foxtail control with Scoil and Merge increasing DPX-79406 activity the most. DPX-79406 provides an effective postemergence alternative for green foxtail control in field corn, for either preplant incorporated herbicides or postemergence cyanazine.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Anonymous. 1990. Beacon product manual. Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C. 4 p.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1990. Accent product manual. E. I. Du Pont Nemours and Company. Wilmington, DE. 12 p.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1990. DPX-79406 technical bulletin. E. I. Du Pont Nemours and Company. Wilmington, DE. 6 p.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. 1990. DPX-E9636 technical bulletin. E. I. Du Pont Nemours and Company. Wilmington, DE. 6 p.Google Scholar
5. Bhowmik, P. C., O'Toole, B. M., and Andaloro, J. 1992. Effects of nicosulfuron on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:5256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Camacho, R. F., Moshier, L. J., Morishita, D. W., and Devlin, D. L. 1991. Rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron and nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 5:789794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Harms, C. T., Montoya, AL., Privalle, L. S., and Briggs, R. W. 1990. Genetic and biochemical characterization of corn inbred lines tolerant to the sulfonylurea herbicide primisulfuron. Theor. Appl. Genet. 80:353358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hart, S. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1992. Influence of adjuvants on the efficacy, absorption, and spray retention of primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:592598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Mauer, M., Gerber, H. R., and Rufener, J. 1987. CGA 136'872: a new post-emergence herbicide for the selective control of Sorghum spp. and Elymus repens in maize. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:4148.Google Scholar
10. Monks, D. W., Mullins, C. A, and Johnson, K. E. 1992. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:280283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Morton, C. A and Harvey, R. G. 1992. Sweet corn (Zea mays) hybrid tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:9196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Moyer, J. R. and Dryden, R. D. 1979. Wild oats, green foxtail, and broad-leaved weeds: Control and effect on corn yield at Brandon, Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:383389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Nalewaja, J. D., Woznica, Z., and Manthey, F. A. 1991. DPX-V9360 efficacy with adjuvants and environment. Weed Technol. 5:9296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Palm, H. L., Liang, P. H., Fuesler, T. P., Leek, G. L., Strachan, S. D., Wittenbach, V. A., and Swinchatt, M. L. 1989. New low-rate sulfonylureas for post-emergence weed control in corn. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:2328.Google Scholar
15. Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980. Effects of green foxtail and lambsquarters interference in field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:14191425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Vanden Born, W. H. 1971. Green foxtail: seed dormancy, germination, and growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 51:5359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar