Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T11:52:54.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Sethoxydim on Corn (Zea mays) and Giant Foxtail (Setaria faberi)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jon P. Chernicky ,
Roger Gast  and
Fred W. Slife
Jon P. Chernicky
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Illinois, Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801
Roger Gast
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Illinois, Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801
Fred W. Slife
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Illinois, Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corn and giant foxtail response to foliar-applied sethoxydim at 67, 134, and 200 g ai/ha was evaluated in field studies. Sethoxydim applied over the top of corn (60 cm tall) caused greater whorl damage and reduced corn grain yield more than postdirected sethoxydim. Sethoxydim controlled giant foxtail best when used in conjunction with a preemergence application of metolachlor (2.2 kg/ha) and atrazine (1.7 kg/ha).

Keywords

Corn (Zea mays L. Var. ‘Pioneer 3377′)giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm. ♯3 SETFA)sethoxydim {2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one}metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide]atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N′-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine]Postdirectedover the topBAS 9052
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , July 1989 , pp. 600 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Boydston, R. A. and Slife, F. W. 1987. Postemergence control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) in corn (Zea mays) with tridiphane and triazine combinations. Weed Sci. 35:103–108.Google Scholar
2. Budd, E. G. 1982. The control of grass weeds in red fescue (Festuca rubra) seed crops. J. Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. 16:67–74.Google Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1964. Cultivation and herbicide treatments of dryland sorghum. Weeds 12:307–310.Google Scholar
4. Butler, J. H. and Appleby, A. P. 1986. Tolerance of red fescue and bentgrass (Argrostis spp.) to sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 34:457–461.Google Scholar
5. Chernicky, J. P. and Slife, F. W. 1986. Effects of sublethal concentrations of bentazon, fluazifop, haloxyfop, and sethoxydim on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:171–174.Google Scholar
6. Dexter, A. G., Burnside, O. C., and Lavy, T. L. 1966. Factors influencing the phytotoxicity of foliar applications of atrazine. Weeds. 14:222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Fawcett, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1988. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence-directed herbicides. Weed Sci. 36:215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Fawcett, J. A., Harvey, R. G., Arnold, W. E., Bauman, T. T., Eberlein, C. V., Kells, J. J., Moshierm, L. J., Slife, F. W., and Wilson, R. G. 1987. Influence of environment on corn (Zea mays) tolerance to sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 35:568–575.Google Scholar
9. Hosaka, H., Inaba, H., and Ishikawa, H. 1984. Response of monocotyledons to BAS 9052 OH. Weed Sci. 32:28–32.Google Scholar
10. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.Google Scholar
11. Mooleni, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed in corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.Google Scholar
12. Retzinger, E. J. Jr., Rogers, R. L., and Morris, R. P. 1983. Performance of BAS 9052 applied to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:796–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 32:227–234.Google Scholar