Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T21:30:46.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Acetanilide-Antidote Combinations for Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays) and Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. E. Winkle
Affiliation:
Univ. of Nebraska
J. R. C. Leavitt
Affiliation:
Univ. of Nebraska
O. C. Burnside
Affiliation:
Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583

Abstract

R-25788 (N,N-diallyl-2,2-dichloroacetamide) and H-31866 [N-allyl-N-(3,3-dichloroallyl)dichloroacetamide] were more effective than CDAA (N,N-diallyl-2-chloroacetamide) in preventing yield reductions to corn (Zea mays L. ‘NB-611’) from alachlor [2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)acetanilide] or metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] in the greenhouse. A CGA-43089 [α-(cyanomethoximino)-benzacetonitrile] seed treatment (1.25 g/kg) was more effective than a R-25788 tank mix in preventing yield reductions to grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘G-623 GBR’] from alachlor or metolachlor in the greenhouse. Absorption of 14C-alachlor by sorghum seedlings grown in petri dishes, and absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-metolachlor by sorghum seedlings grown in soil, were not affected by CGA-43089 seed treatment. Forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘Rox Orange’] was used to simulate shatter cane [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] in field plots. In the absence of Rox Orange, alachlor and metolachlor reduced sorghum grain yields. This yield reduction was prevented by a CGA-43089 seed treatment, but not by a R-25788 tank mix with herbicides. In plots seeded with 10,000 Rox Orange seed/57 m2, grain yields of sorghum increased as alachlor or metolachlor plus CGA-43089 rates increased. There was no grain yield response to any herbicide treatment in plots seeded with 50,000 Rox Orange seed/57 m2.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Chang, T. C., Stephenson, G. R., and Bandeen, J. D. 1973. Comparative effects of three EPTC antidotes. Weed Sci. 21:292295.Google Scholar
2. Ellis, J. F., Peak, J. W., Boehle, J. Jr., and Müller, G. 1980. Effectiveness of a new safener for protecting sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) from metolachlor injury. Weed Sci. 28:15.Google Scholar
3. Lay, M. M. and Casida, J. E. 1976. Dichloracetamide antidotes enhance thiocarbamate sulfoxide detoxification by elevating corn root glutathione content and glutathione-s-transferase activity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 6:422456.Google Scholar
4. Leavitt, J. R. C. and Penner, D. 1978. Protection of corn (Zea mays) from acetanilide herbicidal injury with the antidote R-25788. Weed Sci. 26:653659.Google Scholar
5. Leavitt, J. R. C. and Penner, D. 1979. In vitro conjugation of glutathione and other thiols with acetanilide herbicides and EPTC sulfoxide and the action of the herbicide antidote R-25788. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:533536.Google Scholar
6. Meggitt, W. F., Kern, A. D., and Armstrong, T. F. 1972. Crop protectants and the use of thiocarbamates in corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 27:22.Google Scholar
7. Rains, L. J. and Fletchall, O. H. 1971. The use of chemicals to protect crops from herbicide injury. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 26:42.Google Scholar
8. Spotanski, R. F. and Burnside, O. C. 1973. Reducing herbicide injury to sorghum with crop protectants. Weed Sci. 21:531536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Vesecky, J. F., Feltner, K. C., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1973. Wild cane and forage sorghum competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 21:2832.Google Scholar
10. Winkle, M. E., Leavitt, J. R. C., and Burnside, O. C. 1978. Control of weedy sorghum in corn with acetanilide herbicides: weed density effect. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:46.Google Scholar