Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T22:16:41.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of crop growth stage on tolerance to low doses of thifensulfuron:tribenuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Wall
David A. Wall*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Centre, P.O. Box 1000A, R.R. #3, Brandon, MB, Canada R7A 5Y3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Morden, Manitoba, in 1994 and 1995 to investigate the effect of crop growth stages on canola and sunflower tolerance to sublethal doses of thifensulfuron:tribenuron (2:1). Thifensulfuron:tribenuron at doses of 0, 0.23, 0.45, 0.9, 1.8, and 3.6 g ai ha−1 plus a nonionic surfactant at 0.5% v/v were applied to canola and sunflower at the two- to three-leaf, four- to five-leaf, and six- to seven-leaf stages. Crop leaf stage at the time of application affected tolerance of both crops to thifensulfuron:tribenuron. Crop injury was lowest, and flowering, seed yield, and seed oil content were least affected when low doses of thifensulfuron:tribenuron were applied at the two- to three-leaf stage. At the highest dose, there was little practical difference among growth stages since yield of both crops was severely reduced. Producers with drift-affected canola or sunflower can expect less effect on crop yield when thifensulfuron:tribenuron injury occurs during early crop growth.

Keywords

Thifensulfuron, 3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylic acidtribenuron, 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methylamino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidcanola, Brassica rapa L., ‘Legend’sunflower, Helianthus annuus L., ‘SF 270.’Crop injuryoil contentspray drift
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , August 1997 , pp. 538 - 545
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol. 6: 956–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1992. Herbicide and plant regulator field trials. in Manual for Field Trials in Plant Protection. Basel, Switzerland: Ciba-Geigy Limited, pp. 51–82.Google Scholar
Ash, G.H.B., Shaykewich, C. F., and Raddatz, R. L. 1992. Agricultural Climate of the Eastern Canadian Prairies. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba, 51 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 740–745.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., and Goering, C. E. 1976. Spray drift and recovery as affected by spray thickener, nozzle type and nozzle pressure. Trans. ASAE 19: 213–218.Google Scholar
Cornes, D. W., Maurer, W., Ryan, P., du Rieu, A. G., and Iwanzik, W. 1991. Degradation behaviour of triasulfuron in the soil. Results of replanting studies and bioassays. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds. 2: 543–550.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V. and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simualated drift of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Sci. 42: 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmund, R. M. and York, A. C. 1987. Effects of rainfall and temperature on postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025. Weed Sci. 35: 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1991. Residual effects of CGA-131036 and chlorsulfuron on spring-sown rotational crops. Weed Sci. 39: 280–283.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J. and Wilson, R. G. 1986. Sensitivity of fieldbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to reduced rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Sci. 34: 953–956.Google Scholar
Maybank, J., Yoshida, K., and Grover, R. 1974. Droplet size spectra, drift potential, and ground deposition pattern of herbicide sprayers. Can. J. Plant Sci. 54: 541–546.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Esau, R., and Kozub, G. C. 1990. Chlorsulfuron persistence and response in nine rotational crops in alkaline soils of southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 4: 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Woznica, Z. 1985. Environment and chlorsulfuron phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 33: 395–399.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A. and Morrison, W. H. 1979. Analysis of oil content of sunflower seed by wide-line NMR. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 56: 961–964.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1978. Response of sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) to sublethal rates of 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 26: 629–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40: 106–109.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1994. Tolerance of five annual broadleaf crops to simulated thifensulfuron:tribenuron spray drift. Weed Technol. 8: 785–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A., Derksen, D. A., and Friesen, L. F. 1995. Canola (Brassica napus) response to simulated sprayer contamination with thifensulfuron:tribenuron. Weed Technol. 9: 468–476.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1993. Effect of protective shields on drift and depostion characteristics of field sprayers. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 1261–1273.Google Scholar
Zhao, C. C., Teasdale, J. R., and Coffman, C. B. 1990. Factors affecting the activity of thifensulfuron. Weed Sci. 38: 553–557.Google Scholar