Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-09T10:39:58.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazaquin, Chlorimuron, and Fomesafen May Injure Rotational Vegetables and Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David H. Johnson  and
Ronald E. Talbert
David H. Johnson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carryover potential of imazaquin (0.14 kg ai ha−1), chlorimuron plus metribuzin (0.06 + 0.36 kg ha−1), and fomesafen (0.28 kg ha−1) to snap bean, watermelon, cucumber, mustard, and sunflower was evaluated in Arkansas in 1987 to 1989. Crops were direct-seeded into treated plots at various times after application. Imazaquin and chlorimuron plus metribuzin injured sunflower, watermelon, cucumber, and mustard when planted 16 wk following application in one of two years. Fomesafen injured all crops initially but did not injure snap bean, sunflower, watermelon, and cucumber planted 16 wk after application. In experiments in which herbicides were applied to soybean, fall-planted spinach and mustard were injured in one of two years.

Keywords

Chlorimuron, 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidfomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamideimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidaxol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidmetribuzin, 4-ammo-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onecucumber, Cucwnis sativus L. ‘Carolina’mustard, Brassica nigra L. 'Southern Giant Curled’snap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Benton’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Forrest’spinach, Spinachia oleracea L. ‘Tyee’sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. ‘Black Russian’watermelon, Citrullis lonatus (Thunb.) Mansf. ‘Crimson Sweet’Diphenylether herbicideherbicide carryoverherbicide persistenceimidazolinone herbicideplanting intervalsulfonylurea herbicide
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 573 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Anonymous. 1989. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL. 301 p.Google Scholar
2. Baird, D. L., Knake, E. L., and Paul, L. E. 1989. Effect of pH, tillage, and rate on residual effect of chlorimuron on corn. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 29:91–92.Google Scholar
3. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:820–824.Google Scholar
5. Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Boucounis, T. G., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1990. Correlation of bioassay crop growth with cinmethylin and chlorimuron application rates for two soils. HortScience 25:536–538.Google Scholar
7. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Claus, J. S. 1987. Chlorimuron-ethyl (Classic): a new broadleaf postemergence herbicide in soybean. Weed Technol. 1:114–115.Google Scholar
9. Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burwood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybean development. Crop Sci. 11:929–931.Google Scholar
10. Fuesler, T. P. and Hanafey, M. K. 1990. Effect of moisture on chlorimuron degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 38:256–261.Google Scholar
11. Mills, J.A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–359.Google Scholar
12. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39:629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.Google Scholar
14. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
15. Rose, R. P. and Riabov, J. 1985. Today's herbicide: Reflex 2LC herbicide—a new selective postemergence broadleaf weed herbicide for soybeans. Weeds Today 16:5.Google Scholar
16. Savage, K. E. 1977. Metribuzin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 25:55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Webster, G.R.B. and Reiner, G. J. 1976. Field degradation of the herbicide metribuzin and its degradation products in a Manitoba sandy loam soil. Weed Res. 16:191–196.Google Scholar