Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:41:58.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat Tolerance to AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00 as Affected by Time of Application and Rate of the Safener AE F107892

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

H. Lane Crooks ,
Alan C. York  and
David L. Jordan
H. Lane Crooks
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: alan_york@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soft red winter wheat response to the herbicides AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00 applied alone or with the safener AE F107892 at the three-leaf, two-tiller, and six-tiller growth stages was determined in a field experiment in North Carolina. AE F130060 00 at 25 g ai/ha plus AE F115008 00 at 5 g ai/ha, twice the anticipated use rate, applied with safener injured wheat 9% but did not affect grain yield, grain test weight, number of spikes, number of kernels per spike, or kernel weight. Results were similar with safener at herbicide–safener ratios of 1:1 and 1:3 regardless of the wheat growth stage at application. Without the safener, AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00 applied at the three-leaf, two-tiller, and six-tiller growth stages injured wheat an average of 27% and reduced grain yields 5, 5, and 11%, respectively. Yield losses were attributed to reduced numbers of kernels per spike. AE F130060 00 at 12.5 g/ha plus AE F115008 00 at 2.5 g/ha plus AE F107892 at 15 g ai/ha did not affect grain yield or yield components.

Keywords

AE F107892 (proposed name, mefenpyr-diethyl), 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3,5-dicarboxylic acidAE F115008 00 (proposed name, iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium), 4-iodo-2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid methyl esterAE F130060 00 (proposed name mesosulfuron-methyl), methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-4-[[(methylsulfonyl)amino]methyl]benzoatewheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Coker 9704’Herbicide injurywheat yieldyield componentsFGS, feekes growth stagePOST, postemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 841 - 845
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

Appleby, A. P., Olsen, P. D., and Colbert, D. R. 1976. Winter wheat yield reduction from interference by Italian ryegrass. Agron. J 68:463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Responses of winter wheat and diclofop-methyl-sensitive and -resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) to AE F130060 03. Weed Sci. 51:515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. AE F130060 00/iodosulfuron (AE F130060 00) for Italian ryegrass control in VA wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:21–22.Google Scholar
Brewster, B. D., Appleby, A. P., and Spinner, R. L. 1977. Control of Italian ryegrass and wild oats in winter wheat with HOE 23408. Agron. J 69:911–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggle, L. W. 1967. Morphology of the wheat plant. in Quisenberry, K. S., ed. Wheat and Wheat Improvement. Agronomy Monograph 13. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Pp. 89–116.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L. 2003. Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) Management in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) with AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00. Ph.D. dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 162 p.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L. and York, A. C. 2002. Italian ryegrass control in wheat with AE F130060 00-methyl. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:22–23.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. 2002. Weed management in wheat. in 2001 to 2002 Wheat Production Guide. Publication CSS0-01-17. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Hand, S. S., Smith, T. L., Sanderson, J., Barr, G., Strachan, W. F., and Paulsgrove, M. 2002. AE F130060 00—a new selective herbicide for grass control in wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:142–143.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., Mueller, T. C., and Brawley, P. B. 2002. Italian ryegrass control in wheat with AE F130060 00-methyl plus iodosulfuron-methyl (AE F130060 00) with safener AE F107892 (AE F107892). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:211–212.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2002. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds:. Web page: http://www.weedsci.org. Accessed: May 2, 2003.Google Scholar
Justice, G. G., Peeper, T. F., Solie, J. B., and Epplin, F. M. 1994. Net returns from Italian ryegrass control in winter wheat. Weed Technol. 8:317–323.Google Scholar
Liebl, R. A. and Worsham, A. D. 1987a. Effect of chlorsulfuron on diclofop phytotoxicity to Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Sci. 35:383–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebl, R. A. and Worsham, A. D. 1987b. Interference of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35:819–823.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:247–274.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Weisz, R., Crooks, H. L., and Tarleton, B. 2000. Small grain weed control. in Small Grain Production Guide 2000 to 2001. Publication AG-580. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 57–63.Google Scholar