Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:28:23.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet Corn (Zea mays) Cultivar Tolerance to Application Timing of Nicosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Darren K. Robinson ,
David W. Monks ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis  and
A. Douglas Worsham
Darren K. Robinson
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci. and Crop Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci. and Crop Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci. and Crop Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
A. Douglas Worsham
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci. and Crop Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

'Silver Xtra Sweet’, ‘How Sweet It Is', ‘Zenith’ and 'Sweetie 76’ were evaluated for response to 0, 35, and 70 g/ha nicosulfuron applied POST at the 5- to 6- or 7- to 8-leaf stages of growth. Nicosulfuron (35 g/ha) caused 60 to 80% visible injury to Silver Xtra Sweet. How Sweet It Is and Zenith were moderately tolerant (< 20% visible injury) and Sweetie 76 was the most tolerant (10% visible injury). All cultivars were less tolerant when nicosulfuron was applied at the 7- to 8-leaf than the 5- to 6-leaf stage. Plant height of Silver Xtra Sweet was reduced 51% by 35 g/ha nicosulfuron applied at the 5- to 6-leaf stage and injury increased when nicosulfuron was applied at the 7- to 8-leaf stage. Yield losses of Silver Xtra Sweet occurred as a result of the nicosulfuron treatments.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamidesweet corn, Zea mays L., Silver Xtra Sweet, How Sweet It Is, Zenith, and Sweetie 76Herbicide injurysulfonylurea
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 840 - 843
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. American Phytopathology Society. 1973. Maize dwarf mosaic. p. 61 in Shurtleff, M. C., ed. Compendium of Corn Diseases. Am. Phytopathol 2. Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Vegetable crops. p. 362–382 in Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. J., eds. Weed Science Principles and Practices. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
3. Biediger, D. L., Baumann, P. A., Weaver, D. N., Chandler, J. M., and Merkle, M. G. 1991. Corn response to CGA 1367872 and DPX-V9360 on sweet corn treated with selected soil-applied organophosphate insecticides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:104.Google Scholar
4. Harper, J. L. 1977. The effects of neighbors. p. 151–347 in Harper, J. L., ed. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press Ltd., London.Google Scholar
5. Lorenz, O. A. and Maynard, D. N. 1988. Field Planting, p. 67–96 in Lorenz, O. A. and Maynard, D. N., eds. Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
6. Monks, D. W. and Johnson, K. E. 1989. Sweet corn responses to Accent (DPX-V9360) and Beacon (CGA 136 872). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:155.Google Scholar
7. Monks, D. W., Mullins, C. A., and Johnson, K. E. 1992. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:280–283.Google Scholar
8. Morton, C. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1988. DPX-V9360 for weed control in field and sweet corn. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Proc. 43:21.Google Scholar
9. Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Lueschen, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effects of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn (Zea mays) under three environments. Weed Technol. 5:130–136.Google Scholar
10. Pierce, L. C. 1989. Sweet corn. p. 383–398 in Pierce, L. C., ed. Vegetables, Characteristics, Production and Marketing. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Toronto.Google Scholar
11. Rick, S. K. and Rowe, S. W. 1991. Postemergence weed control in corn in the southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:128.Google Scholar
12. Schultheis, J. R., Monks, D. W., Adams, D. E., Hunt, R. I., and Mills, R. J. 1990. Sweet corn research and extension report. Dep. Hortic. Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh. Hortic. Res. Ser. No. 89.Google Scholar
13. Short, G. E. and Lacy, M. L. 1976. Carbohydrate exudation from pea seeds: Effect of cultivar, seed age, seed color, and temperature, and relation to fungal rots. Phytopathology 66:182–187.Google Scholar
14. Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1992. Sweet corn cultivars respond differentially to the herbicide nicosulfuron. Hortic. Sci. 27(2): 131–133.Google Scholar
15. Styer, R. C. and Cantliffe, D. J. 1983. Changes in seed structure and composition during development and their effects on leakage in two endosperm mutants of sweet corn. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 108(5): 721–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Green Corn. Source: 46FR63203.Google Scholar
17. William, W. T., Krueger, W. A., Hayes, R. M., and Rhodes, G. N. 1991. Johnsongrass control in corn with postemergence herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:130.Google Scholar
18. Worsham, A. D. and Saunders, E. M. 1991. Method of terbufos application and time of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron application to corn and crop injury. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44.105.Google Scholar