Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T03:53:07.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Various Weed Species and Corn (Zea mays) to RPA 201772

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Prasanta C. Bhowmik ,
Sanjay Kushwaha  and
Sowmya Mitra
Prasanta C. Bhowmik*
Affiliation:
Weed Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
Sanjay Kushwaha
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
Sowmya Mitra
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to determine the response of corn (Zea mays), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescence) to RPA 201772. Barnyardgrass, large crabgrass, velvetleaf, and common lambsquarters were more susceptible than yellow foxtail to RPA 201772. Velvetleaf was the most susceptible species and rates above 18 g ai/ha of RPA 201772 controlled 100% of the population 4 wk after treatment (WAT). Percent control of all the weed species increased with increased RPA 201772 rates. In the field, the dry weights of yellow foxtail decreased as the rate of RPA 201772 increased from 0 to 210 g/ha. However, a 60% reduction of dry weight of yellow foxtail was recorded at 140 g/ha of RPA 201772 compared to the untreated check 6 WAT, whereas at 12 WAT the dry weight of yellow foxtail was reduced to only 15% because of intraspecific competition. Yellow foxtail was moderately susceptible to RPA 201772. Corn was tolerant to RPA 201772; the GR80 value was 435 g/ha in the greenhouse. The bleaching injury to corn in the field was less than 10%, and it was found only with the 210 g/ha rate of RPA 201772. This injury was temporary and the plants recovered within 2 to 3 wk. Based on the GR80 values, velvetleaf was the most susceptible, followed by common lambsquarters, large crabgrass, barnyardgrass, and yellow foxtail.

Keywords

RPA 201772 (proposed name, isoxaflutole), 5-cyclopropyl-4-(2-methylsulfonyl-4-trifluoro methylbenzoyl)isoxazolebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus. # ABUTHyellow foxtail, Setaria lutescence (Weigel) F.T. Hubb. # SETLUcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Muncy Chief. ESX569,’ ‘Max 747.’Echinochloa crus-galliChenopodium albumDigitaria sanguinalisAbutilon theophrastiSetaria lutescenceECHCGCHEALDIGSAABUTHSETLUGR80, growth reduction by 80%PRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 504 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

A contribution from Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station; Journal Article No. 3239.

References

Literature Cited

Bhowmik, P. C. and Prostak, R. G. 1997, Comparison of preemergence activity of EXP 31130A in annual weed control under conventional-tillage and no-tillage systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:12.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C., Vrabel, T. E., Prostak, R., and Cartier, J. 1996. Activity of RPA 201772 in controlling weed species in field corn. Proc. Second Int. Weed Control Congr. (Copenhagen) 2:807–812.Google Scholar
Cain, P. A., Cramp, S. M., Little, G. M., and Luscombe, B. M., inventors; EP Patent 0527036. 1993.Google Scholar
Creange, P., Hornuf, A., and Breuer, H. 1998. Isoxaflutole, a new active ingredient, a new mode of action to solve maize weed problems. Z. Pflkrankh. PflSchutz, Sonderh. 16:555–558.Google Scholar
Damon, R.A. Jr., and Harvey, W. R. 1987. Experimental Design, ANOVA and Regression. New York: Harper and Row. 508 p.Google Scholar
Luscombe, B. M., Pellet, K. E., Lonbiere, P., Millett, J. C., Melgraegjo, J., and Vrabel, T. E. 1995. RPA 201772: a novel herbicide for broadleaf and grass weed control in maize and sugarcane. Proc. 1995 Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds. 1:35–42.Google Scholar
Pallet, K. E., Little, J. P., Veerasekaran, P., and Viviani, F. 1997. New perspectives in mechanisms of herbicide action. Pestic. Sci. 50:83–84.Google Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Neus, O., Callens, D., and Bulcke, R. 1998. Isoxaflutole herbicide soil persistence and mobility in summer corn and winter wheat crops. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 60:577–584.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed, Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1997. Effect of application timing on corn tolerance and weed control with isoxaflutole. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:5.Google Scholar
Stachecki, J. R., Vrabel, T. E., and Williams, C. B. 1997. 1996 EUP results for isoxaflutole in corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:52.Google Scholar
Vrabel, T. E., Cartier, J. P., and White, M. 1997. Performance of isoxaflutole in preemergence and preplant applications in conventional tillage corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:53.Google Scholar
Vrabel, T. E., Veilleux, D. P., and Gemma, C. M. 1998. Isoxaflutole performance in tank mixes and pre mixes in corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:114.Google Scholar
Young, G. B., Hart, S. E., and Simmons, F. W. 1998. Performance of preemergence applications of isoxaflutole in corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:8.Google Scholar