Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T23:35:35.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet Corn (Zea mays) Cultivar Sensitivity to CGA 152005 Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John O'Sullivan  and
Peter Sikkema
John O'Sullivan*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Simcoe, Ontario, Canada N3Y 4N5
Peter Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: josulliv@uoguelph.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1997 and 1998 to evaluate tolerance of nine sweet corn cultivars to CGA 152005 postemergence at 10 and 20 g ai/ha. There was a cultivar by herbicide interaction for visible plant injury, plant height, ear weight, and yield. Sweet corn injury from CGA 152005 increased as rate increased. CGA 152005 at both rates killed ‘DelMonte 2038’. ‘Eliminator’, ‘Reward’, ‘Delectable’, and ‘Reveille’ were injured (10 to 12% plant height reduction), and the remaining cultivars (‘Challenger’, ‘Krispy King’, ‘CNS 710’, and ‘GH 2690’) were tolerant to CGA 152005 at both rates.

Keywords

CGA 152005 (proposed common name, prosulfuron), 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-ureasweet corn, Zea mays L.Plant heightcrop injurysulfonylureaDAP, days after plantingDAT, days after treatmentOM, organic matterPRE, preemergencePOST, postemergenceSU, sulfonylurea
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 204 - 207
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2000. Vegetable production recommendations 2000-2001. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs Publication 363. 240 p.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. A. and Gorski, S. F. 1989. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) endosperm mutants to chloracetamide and thiocarbamate herbicide. Weed Technol. 3: 475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schleuter, D. D. 1988. Sulfonylurea herbicides. In Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation and Mode of Action, Volume 3. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 117–189.Google Scholar
Doohan, D. J., Ivany, J. A., White, R. P., and Thomas, W. 1998. Tolerance of early maturing corn (Zea mays) hybrids to DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 12: 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. 1998. Differential tolerance of corn (Zea mays) inbreds to four SU herbicides and bentazon. Weed Technol. 12: 474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Kells, J. J., Luescher, W. E., and Fritz, V. A. 1991. Effect of DPX-V9360 and terbufos on field and sweet corn (Zea mays) under three environments. Weed Technol. 5: 130–136.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1998. Sensitivity of processing sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to nicosulfuron/rimsulfuron. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 151–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Bouw, W. J. 1998. Tolerance of sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivars to rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 12: 258–261.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., Schulthesis, J. R., and Worsham, A. D. 1993. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to application timing of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 840–843.Google Scholar
Schulte, M., Krenz, K., Nelgen, N., Hudetz, M., and Meyer, W. 1993. CGA 152 005—a new herbicide for control of broadleaved weeds in European maize. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 2: 53–59.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Bewick, T. A. 1992. Sweet corn cultivars respond differently to the herbicide nicosulfuron. HortScience. 27: 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., Elmes, M. J., Murphy, S. D., and Anderson, G. W. 1996. Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol. 10: 288–294.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., Anthon, T. M., and Kutil, J. L. 1997. Sweet corn hybrid—tolerance to ALS-herbicides study. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 7–9.Google Scholar
Widstrom, N. W. and Dowler, C. C. 1995. Sensitivity of selected field corn inbreds (Zea mays) to nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 779–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 1996. Nicosulfuron tolerance in sweet corn (Zea mays) as affected by hybrid, root worm insecticide and nicosulfuron treatment. Weed Technol. 10: 488–494.Google Scholar