4.2 Article

Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) control in corn with various rates of halosulfuron

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 98, Issue 3, Pages 628-632

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/cjps-2017-0229

Keywords

biologically effective dose; biomass; density; Cyperus esculentus L.; Zea mays L.

Funding

  1. Grain Farmers of Ontario
  2. Growing Forward 2 program of the Agricultural Adaptation Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are a limited number of herbicide options that provide commercially acceptable control of yellow nutsedge in corn. A study consisting of nine field experiments was conducted during 2013-2016 in growers' fields in Ontario to evaluate the efficacy of glyphosate plus various rates of halosulfuron applied after emergence (post-emergence, POST) for the control of yellow nutsedge in glyphosate-resistant corn. Glyphosate (900 g a.e. ha(-1)) plus halosulfuron applied POST at the registered rate of 34-68 g a.i. ha(-1) caused minimal injury in glyphosate-resistant corn. The predicted halosulfuron rates needed to control yellow nutsedge 50%, 80%, and 90% were 3, 24, and >140 g a.i. ha(-1) at 4 weeks after herbicide application (WAA) and 2, 13, and 73 g a.i. ha(-1) at 8 WAA, respectively. The predicted halosulfuron rates required to reduce yellow nutsedge density 50%, 80%, and 90% were 13, 42, and 109 ga.i. ha(-1), respectively. In addition, the predicted halosulfuron rates required to reduce yellow nutsedge dry weight 50%, 80%, and 90% were 6, 23, and 54 g a.i. ha(-1), respectively. Contrasts comparing halosulfuron (35 g a.i. ha(-1)) with other herbicides showed that glyphosate plus halosulfuron provided as much as 35% greater control of yellow nutsedge than glyphosate plus bentazon (1080 g a.i. ha(-1)) and as much as 22% greater control of yellow nutsedge than glyphosate plus tembotrione/thiencarbazone (45 g a.i. ha(-1)).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available