Effect of AC 263,222, Imazethapyr, and Nicosulfuron on Weed Control and Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (<i>Zea mays</i>) Yield

Monks, C. Dale; Wilcut, John W.; Richburg, John S.; Hatton, J. H.; Patterson, Michael G.

doi:10.1017/s0890037x00040860

Cited by 14 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Smellmelon control was 80 to 91% and devil's-claw control was 88 to 94% when imazapic was applied EPOST and LPOST. Similar results were reported by Monks et al (1996), who attributed poor weed control by imazapic to low amounts of rain at the time of application.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Commercial standards resulted in similar Texas panicum control. Imidazolinone herbicides, including imazapic and imazethapyr, have been shown to provide Ͼ88% Texas panicum control (Ducar et al 2004;Monks et al 1996). Ivyleaf and entireleaf morningglory did not exhibit a differential response to imazapic in this study or in previous research (Bailey et al 1999a;Wilcut et al 1996).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 43%

“…Some weed management strategies have incorporated herbicide-resistant cultivars, such as imidazolinone-resistant (IR) corn, and IT corn (Sprague et al 1997). Imidazolinone herbicides provide broad-spectrum weed control with low toxicological human or animal effects (Monks et al 1996). Members of the imidazolinone herbicide family include imazamethabenz, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, imazapic, and imazamox (Vencill 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)¹

Thompson¹,

Rosales-Robles²,

Chandler³

et al. 2005

Weed Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted in 1997 and 1998 to evaluate the efficacy of imidazolinone weed management systems and crop tolerance of imidazolinone-tolerant (IT) corn to imazapic. Imazapic (36 and 72 g/ha) was evaluated when applied PRE; early postemergence (EPOST), when corn was at the two- to three-leaf stage; and late postemergence (LPOST), when corn was at the six- to eight-leaf stage. Imazapyr + imazethapyr EPOST and metolachlor + atrazine followed by (fb) primisulfuron LPOST were evaluated as commercial standards. Imazapic at 36 g/ha EPOST controlled johnsongrass, Texas panicum, smellmelon, and ivyleaf and entireleaf morningglory at least 93% when adequate rainfall occurred. Devil's claw was controlled at least 85% with imazapic EPOST or LPOST at either rate. Imazapic at 36 g/ha EPOST and LPOST controlled eclipta 88 and 91%, respectively. Yellow nutsedge was controlled >91% with imazapic LPOST, which was superior to imazapic applied EPOST. Broadleaf signalgrass was controlled 94% with imazapic at 72 g/ha LPOST, which was significantly higher than other herbicide treatments. Imazapic at 36 and 72 g/ha applied PRE under moisture stress resulted in reduced weed control; but when adequate rainfall occurred, weed control was generally similar to that of EPOST and LPOST applications. Imazapic crop response at 72, 105, 140, and 211 g/ha applied at EPOST and LPOST was evaluated in two IT corn hybrids. Crop response varied with soil and environmental conditions and application timings. Imazapic at 72, 105, and 140 g/ha EPOST resulted in crop injury 33 to 55% at 6 wk after planting (WAP) in a coarse soil; however, crop injury decreased to <20% at 12 WAP. Low crop injury (<9%) was observed at 12 WAP in a clay soil. Imazapic applied LPOST resulted in lower crop injury than EPOST application. Corn plant height and yield were not affected by any imazapic treatment.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 43%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)¹

Thompson¹,

Rosales-Robles²,

Chandler³

et al. 2005

Weed Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although primarily used for nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) and broadleaf weed control in peanut, imazapic provides some level of annual grass control (Monks et al, 1996;Wilcut et al, 1999;Jordan et al, 2009). Although commercially unacceptable, lactofen based treatments provided better control of annual grasses than acifluorfen treatments.…”

Section: Non-cropmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Nozzle Type on Peanut Weed Control Programs

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increase in herbicide-resistant weeds over the past decade has led to the introduction of crops that are resistant to auxin herbicides. Strict application procedures are required for the use of auxin herbicides in auxin-resistant crops to minimize off-target movement. One requirement for application is the use of nozzles that will minimize drift by producing coarse droplets. Generally, an increase in droplet size can lead to a reduction in coverage and efficacy depending upon the herbicide and weed species. In studies conducted in 2015 and 2016, two of the potential required auxin nozzle types [(AIXR11002 (coarse) and TTI11002 (ultra-coarse)] were compared to a conventional flat-fan drift guard nozzles [DG11002 (medium)] for weed control in peanut herbicide systems. Nozzle type did not influence annual grass or Palmer amaranth control in non-crop tests. Results from in-crop tests indicated that annual grass control was 5% to 6% lower when herbicides were applied with the TTI nozzle when compared to the AIXR or DG nozzles. However, Palmer amaranth control and peanut yield was not influenced by coarsedroplet nozzles. Peanut growers using the coarsedroplet nozzles need to be aware of potential reduced grass control.

show abstract

“…Although primarily used for nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) and broadleaf weed control in peanut, imazapic provides various levels of annual grass control depending upon the species and stage of growth (Monks et al, 1996;Wilcut et al, 1999;Jordan et al, 2009). Lactofen has also been reported to have limited activity on grasses (Grichar, 1991;Minton et al, 1989).…”

Section: Peanut Injury Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time of Day Effects on Peanut Herbicide Efficacy

Carter¹,

Prostko

2019

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on the effects of time of d (TOD) when glufosinate is applied to cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) and several protoporphyrinogen-inhibiting herbicides in soybean ( Glycine max L.) has growers concerned about potential TOD effects on peanut weed control. Consequently, research was conducted in 2015, 2016, and 2017 to determine if TOD influences the performance of peanut herbicides acifluorfen, bentazon, imazapic, lactofen, paraquat, and 2,4-DB. Both non- (bare-ground) and in-crop (peanut) studies were conducted. For non-crop, paraquat plus bentazon plus acifluorfen plus S-metolachlor, imazapic plus S-metolachlor plus 2,4-DB, and lactofen plus S-metolachlor plus 2,4-DB were applied to Palmer amaranth and a non-uniform mixture of annual grasses including Urochloa texana (Buckley), Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.), Eleusine indica (L.), Digitaria spp. at 7:00, 12:00, 17:00, and 22:00 hr. For in-crop studies, two peanut weed control programs were used and herbicide programs were applied at the same TOD. Herbicides were paraquat plus acifluorfen plus bentazon plus S-metolachlor (EPOST) followed by imazapic plus S-metolachlor plus 2,4-DB, or lactofen plus S-metolachlor plus 2,4-DB (POST). For the non-crop studies, a significant interaction between TOD and herbicide program was observed for the 7 d after treatment (DAT) rating of Palmer amaranth control. Control was reduced with imazapic applied at 22:00 hr. At 14 DAT, there was no TOD effect and control was reduced with all imazapic treatments due to ALS resistance. There was no interaction between TOD and herbicide program for annual grass control. Annual grass control was unacceptable (<50%) with lactofen. For in-crop studies, there was no interaction between TOD or herbicide program. Peanut injury was lower at 7:00 hr and 22:00 hr when compared to other timings. Lactofen was more injurious to peanut than imazapic. Palmer amaranth control was not influenced by timing or herbicide program. A reduction in sicklepod control was observed at the 22:00 hr timing and with lactofen. While TOD influenced peanut injury and weed control, peanut yield was not affected.

show abstract

Effect of AC 263,222, Imazethapyr, and Nicosulfuron on Weed Control and Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays) Yield

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)¹

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)¹

The Influence of Nozzle Type on Peanut Weed Control Programs

Time of Day Effects on Peanut Herbicide Efficacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effect of AC 263,222, Imazethapyr, and Nicosulfuron on Weed Control and Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays) Yield

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)1

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)1

The Influence of Nozzle Type on Peanut Weed Control Programs

Time of Day Effects on Peanut Herbicide Efficacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)¹

Crop Tolerance and Weed Management Systems in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Corn (Zea mays L.)¹