Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T17:36:10.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions Between SAN 582H and Selected Safeners on Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Eleni Kotoula-Syka ,
Kriton K. Hatzios  and
Sue A. Meredith
Eleni Kotoula-Syka
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Physiol. and Weed Sci., Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061-0330
Kriton K. Hatzios
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Physiol. and Weed Sci., Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061-0330
Sue A. Meredith
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Physiol. and Weed Sci., Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061-0330
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The efficacy of the safeners naphthalic anhydride (NA), CGA-92194, and CGA-133205 as protectants of grain sorghum and of NA, R-29148, CGA-154281, and dichlormid as protectants of corn against injury from the chloroacetamide herbicide, SAN 582H, was evaluated under greenhouse conditions. SAN 582H applied alone reduced the shoot growth of ‘Funk G522DR’ and ‘Funk G623’ sorghum, but had no effect on the growth of the ‘GP-10’ genotype of sorghum. Corn (‘Northrup-King 9283’ hybrid) was considerably more tolerant than grain sorghum to SAN 582H. The rate of SAN 582H causing 50% reduction of corn shoot height (GR50) was 5.1 kg/ha as compared to 1.1 kg/ha for grain sorghum. NA applied as seed dressing at 5 or 10 g/kg seed, provided moderate protection to ‘G522DR’ and ‘G623’ sorghum and no protection to corn against SAN 582H injury. Dressing of sorghum seeds with CGA-133205 provided moderate protection to G522DR sorghum, whereas seed-applied CGA-92194 provided moderate protection to G623 sorghum against SAN 582H. The dichloroacetamide safeners R-29148, dichlormid, and CGA-154281 were all effective as protectants of corn against SAN 582H injury. These results demonstrate that, as with other chloroacetamide herbicides, the tolerance of corn and grain sorghum to SAN 582H can be enhanced with the use of safeners of the dichloroacetamide type and oxime ether type, respectively.

Keywords

CGA-92194, α-[(1,3-dioxolan-2-yl-methoxy)-imino]benzeneacetonitrileCGA-133205, [2,2,2-trifluoro-4′-chloroacetophenone-0-(1,3-dioxolan-2-yl-methyl)oximeCGA-154281, (4-dichloroacetyl)-3,1-dihydro-3-methyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazinedichlormid, 2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamideSAN 582H (proposed name, dimethenamid) 2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetamideNA, 1,8-naphthalic anhydrideR-29148, 3-(dichloroacetyl)-2,2,5-trimethyl-1,3-oxazolidinecorn, Zea mays L. ‘Northrup-King 9283’grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. ‘Funk G522DR,’ ‘Funk G623,’ ‘GP-10.’AntagonismantidotesprotectantsCGA-92194CGA-133205CGA-154281dichlormidnaphthalic anhydrideR-29148
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 299 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Breaux, E. J., Patanella, J. E., and Sanders, F. F. 1987. Chloroacetanilide herbicide selectivity: Analysis of glutathione and homoglutathione in tolerant, susceptible, and safened seedlings. J. Agric. Food Chem. 35:474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chollet, R., and Harr, J. 1992. SAN 582H: Site of uptake. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 32:95.Google Scholar
3. Colby, S. R., 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
4. Cottingham, C. K., Hatzios, K. K., and Meredith, S. A. 1993. Comparative responses of selected corn (Zen mays L.) hybrids to EPTC and metolachlor. Weed Res. 33:161–170.Google Scholar
5. Fleming-Barnes, G. F., and O'Neal, W. B. 1993. Dimethenamid herbicide experimental use program in corn and soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 33:10.Google Scholar
6. Fuerst, E. P., 1987. Understanding the mode of action of the chloroacetanilide and thiocarbamate herbicides. Weed Technol. 1:2709–277.Google Scholar
7. Harr, J., Chollet, R., and Seckinger, K. 1992. SAN 582H: differential activity of its isomers. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 32:95.Google Scholar
8. Hatzios, K. K., 1989. Development of herbicide safeners: Industrial and university perspectives. p. 3–45 in Hatzios, K. K. and Hoagland, R. E., eds. Crop Safeners for Herbicides: Development, Uses, and Mechanisms of Action. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
9. Hatzios, K. K., 1991. An overview of the mechanisms of action of herbicide safeners. Z. Naturforsch. 46c:819–827.Google Scholar
10. Hatzios, K. K., and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
11. Herringer, C. G., Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1994. Preemergence weed control in corn with acetochlor and dimethenamid. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:23.Google Scholar
12. Jablonkai, I., and Hatzios, K. K. 1991. Role of glutathione and glutathionesS-transferase in the selectivity of acetochlor in maize and wheat, Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 41:221–231.Google Scholar
13. Jordan, J. H., and Wooley, B. L. 1993. Efficacy and crop tolerance of dimethenamid in corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 33:10.Google Scholar
14. Nash, R. G., 1981. Phytotoxic interaction studies—Techniques for evaluation and presentation of results. Weed Sci. 29:147–155.Google Scholar
15. Porterfield, D., 1993. Dimethenamid efficacy and tolerance in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:323.Google Scholar
16. Riechers, D. E., Fuerst, E. P., and Boerboom, C. M. 1994. Optimization and mechanism of action of seed-applied herbicide safeners in winter wheat. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 34:62.Google Scholar
17. Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetanilide injury to com (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 4:904–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Scarponi, L., Perucci, P., and Martinetti, L. 1991. Conjugation of 2-chloroacetanilide herbicides with glutathione: Role of molecular structures and of glutathione S-tranferase enzymes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39:2010–2013.Google Scholar
19. Shrefler, J. W., Chandler, J. M., and Smith, K. L. 1994. Performance consistency of some chloroacetanilide herbicides as affected by rainfall patterns. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:41.Google Scholar
20. Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 481 p.Google Scholar
21. Wilkinson, R. E., Duncan, R. R., Meredith, S. A., and Hatzios, K. K. 1993. Growth and physiological responses of sorghum cultivars exposed to excess H+ and the herbicide metolachlor. Can. J. Bot. 71:533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Wilkinson, R. E., Ramseur, E. L., and Duncan, R. R. 1990. Relationship between metolachlor sensitivity and Mn toxicity tolerance in sorghum cultivars. p. 263–268 in Bassam, N. El, Dambroth, M., and Loughman, B. C., eds. Genetic aspects of plant mineral nutrition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
23. Williamson, D. A., 1993. Dimethenamid efficacy and tolerance in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:322.Google Scholar