Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-xmf2s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-29T14:43:11.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Corn (Zea mays L.) response to sublethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Benjamin P. Sperry
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Benjamin H. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Research Associate II, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Research and Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Bobby R. Golden
Affiliation:
Extension and Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA;
Henry M. Edwards
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel B. Reynolds, Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, 32 Creelman Street, Mississippi State, MS 39762. E-mail: dreynolds@pss.msstate.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted from 2013 to 2015 across three sites in Mississippi to evaluate corn response to sublethal paraquat or fomesafen (105 and 35 g ai ha−1, respectively) applied PRE, or to corn at the V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 growth stages. Fomesafen injury to corn at three d after treatment (DAT) ranged from 0% to 38%, and declined over time. Compared with the nontreated control (NTC), corn height 14 DAT was reduced approximately 15% due to fomesafen exposure at V5 or V7. Exposure at V1 or V7 resulted in 1,220 and 1,110 kg ha−1 yield losses, respectively, compared with the NTC, but yield losses were not observed at any other growth stage. Fomesafen exposure at any growth stage did not affect corn ear length or number of kernel rows relative to the NTC. Paraquat injury to corn ranged from 26% to 65%, depending on growth stage and evaluation interval. Corn exposure to paraquat at V3 or V5 consistently caused greater injury across evaluation intervals, compared with other growth stages. POST timings of paraquat exposure resulted in corn height reductions of 13% to 50%, except at V7, which was most likely due to rapid internode elongation at that stage. Likewise, yield loss occurred after all exposure times of paraquat except PRE, compared with the NTC. Corn yield was reduced 1,740 to 5,120 kg ha−1 compared with the NTC, generally worsening as exposure time was delayed. Paraquat exposure did not reduce corn ear length, compared with the NTC, at any growth stage. However, paraquat exposure at V3 or V5 was associated with reduction of kernel rows by 1.1 and 1.7, respectively, relative to the NTC. Paraquat and fomesafen applications near corn should be avoided if conditions are conducive for off-target movement, because significant injury and yield loss can result.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

Introduction

In Mississippi, corn is typically planted between March 24 and April 27, which often coincides with preplant herbicide applications in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production systems (USDA 2010). Historically, preplant and at-planting PRE herbicide applications have consisted of a residual herbicide for extended weed control plus a nonselective, broad-spectrum herbicide such as paraquat or glyphosate for control of emerged weeds (Givens et al. Reference Givens, Shaw, Johnson, Weller, Young, Wilson, Owen and Jordan2009; Shaw Reference Shaw1996). However, due to widespread glyphosate resistance in troublesome weed species such as Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson), preplant herbicide applications in soybean and cotton now primarily rely on paraquat for control of emerged weeds (Crow et al. Reference Crow, Steckel, Hayes and Mueller2015; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Griffith, Scott, Smith and Oliver2008; Owen et al. Reference Owen, Steckel, Koger, Main and Mueller2009). In addition, fomesafen is commonly used for residual control in cotton applied PRE and for POST control in soybean (Bond et al. Reference Bond, Oliver and Stephenson2006a; Everman et al. Reference Everman, Clewis, York and Wilcut2009; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Griffith, Scott, Smith and Oliver2008; Owen et al. Reference Owen, Steckel, Koger, Main and Mueller2009; Whitaker et al. Reference Whitaker, York, Jordan and Culpepper2010).

Paraquat and fomesafen exhibit contact foliar activity and require greater spray coverage than systemic herbicides for adequate control of target weeds (Buehring et al. Reference Buehring, Roth and Santelmann1973; Etheridge et al. Reference Etheridge, Hart, Hayes and Mueller2001; Knoche Reference Knoche1994; Ramsdale and Messersmith Reference Ramsdale and Messersmith2001a,b; Reichard and Triplett Reference Reichard and Triplett1983). Increased spray coverage is achieved through increasing spray volume, by nozzle selection, or both (Buehring et al. Reference Buehring, Roth and Santelmann1973). However, smaller spray-droplet qualities such as fine (106 to 235 µm) and medium (236 to 340 µm), which are commonly used for contact herbicides, exhibit exponentially higher particle drift than larger spray-droplet qualities, such as very coarse (404 to 603 µm) and ultra-coarse (>665 µm) (ASABE 2009; Foster et al. Reference Foster, Sperry, Reynolds, Kruger and Claussen2018). Consequently, the higher spray-coverage requirement with fomesafen and paraquat applications coupled with close proximity of sensitive row-crop production has resulted in increased incidents of off-target paraquat and fomesafen in Mississippi in recent years.

Off-target movement of glyphosate from preplant applications in cotton and soybean onto non-glyphosate–resistant corn hybrids has been described as an area of concern (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Robinson, Young, Loux, Johnson, Nurse, Swanton and Sikkema2009; Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Griffin and Jones2002, Reference Ellis, Griffin, Linscombe and Webster2003; Henry et al. Reference Henry, Shaw, Reddy, Bruce and Tamhankar2004; Reddy et al. Reference Reddy, King, Zablotowicz, Thomson, Huang and Krutz2010). In addition, low rates of herbicides applied to simulate off-target movement have repeatedly been shown to injure sensitive crops, including rice (Oryza sativa L.), corn, grain sorghum [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.], cotton, peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), and soybean (Bond et al. Reference Bond, Griffin, Ellis, Linscombe and Williams2006b; Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Griffin, Linscombe and Webster2003; Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Fisher, Jordan, Edmisten, Stewart and York2012). Glyphosate applied at 10% of the labeled rate injured grain sorghum up to 60% (Al-Khatib et al. Reference Al-Khatib, Claassen, Stahlman, Geier, Regehr, Duncan and Heer2003). Glufosinate at 6.3% and 12.5% of the labeled rate, applied at boot stage, reduced rice yield 90% (Webster et al. Reference Webster, Hensley, Blouin, Harrell and Bond2015). Corn yields were reduced 78%, 43%, and 22% when glyphosate was applied at 12.5%, 6.3%, and 3.2%, respectively, of the labeled rate at V6 (Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Griffin, Linscombe and Webster2003). Henry et al. (Reference Henry, Shaw, Reddy, Bruce and Tamhankar2004) reported corn response to paraquat under greenhouse conditions; however, plants were only treated at one growth stage, and neither plant height nor yield parameters were evaluated.

Crop growth stage at time of herbicide exposure also can cause differential sensitivity to herbicides (Bunting et al. Reference Bunting, Sprague and Riechers2004; Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Young and Matthews2002; Swanton et al. Reference Swanton, Chandler, Elmes, Murphy and Anderson1996). Johnson et al. (Reference Johnson, Young and Matthews2002) reported that mesotrione caused 4% and 11% greater corn injury when applied at V5 compared with V3 or V4 growth stages, respectively. Corn exhibits 16% to 32% greater injury from foramsulfuron applied at V6 or V8 than at V2 or V4 (Bunting et al. Reference Bunting, Sprague and Riechers2004). Likewise, applications of nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron caused 13% lower yield when applied at V6 than at V3 (Swanton et al. Reference Swanton, Chandler, Elmes, Murphy and Anderson1996). Furthermore, corn injury from nicosulfuron plus bromoxynil was 25% greater when applied at V3 compared with V5 (Carey and Kells Reference Carey and Kells1995).

Currently, to our knowledge, no peer-reviewed literature is published on corn response to paraquat or fomesafen under field conditions. Furthermore, little is known of the effect of corn growth stage on response to paraquat or fomesafen. On the basis of corn sensitivity to other herbicides in the literature, it was hypothesized that corn sensitivity to paraquat or fomesafen would be higher at later vegetative growth stages. Therefore, the objective of these experiments was to evaluate corn agronomic performance and yield after exposure to sublethal rates of paraquat or fomesafen at vegetative growth stages.

Materials and Methods

Two separate but concurrent studies were conducted from 2013 to 2015 at the Delta Research and Extension Center (33°44’00.9”N, 90°88’59.9”W) in Stoneville, MS; in 2014 and 2015 at the R.R. Foil Plant Science Research Center (33°47’60.9”N, 88°77’38.1”W) in Starkville, MS; and in 2014 and 2015 at the Black Belt Experiment Station (33°15’24.5”N, 88°33’24.4”W) near Brooksville, MS, to evaluate corn response to sublethal rates of fomesafen and paraquat. Soil series were Catalpa silty clay (fine, smectic, thermic Fluvaquentic Hapludolls) with 1.3% organic matter (OM) and pH of 7.2; Dundee silty loam (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs) with 1.2% OM and pH of 6.1; and Brooksville silty clay (fine, smectitic, thermic Aquic Hapluderts) with 2.2% OM and pH of 6.1 at Starkville, Stoneville, and Brooksville, MS, respectively. Planting dates, corn hybrids, and seeding rates are listed in Table 1. All studies were conducted under conventional tillage and maintained weed free with PRE applications of glyphosate (Roundup PowerMAX, Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167) and S-metolachlor plus atrazine plus mesotrione (Lexar EZ, Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409) applied at 1,169, 976, 976, and 126 g ae or ai ha−1, respectively. Where needed, weeds escaping PRE control warranted a broadcast POST application of atrazine (Aatrex, Syngenta) and S-metolachlor plus glyphosate plus mesotrione (Halex GT, Syngenta) 1,682, 1,055, 1,055, and 106 g ha−1, respectively, to the entire experimental area. Plot sizes in Starkville and Brooksville were four rows spaced 97-cm apart and 12-m long. In Stoneville, plots were four rows 102-cm apart and 9-m long. Corn at all sites received 32% urea-ammonium nitrate at 523 L ha−1 21 to 35 d after planting (DAT).

Table 1. Planting dates, locations, corn hybrids, and seeding rates for experiments evaluating corn agronomic performance after exposure to sublethal rates of fomesafen or paraquat at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.

a P2088YHR, P1793YHR, P2088YHR, P2089YHR, and P1739YHR (Dupont Pioneer, Johnston IA); Dekalb 64-69 (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO).

Paraquat and fomesafen were tested individually in separate experiments; however, methods for both experiments were identical. Both experiments were conducted as randomized complete block designs with four replications. In similar studies, researchers have used sublethal herbicide rates that ranged from 1% to 13% of the labeled use rate (Al-Khatib et al. Reference Al-Khatib, Claassen, Stahlman, Geier, Regehr, Duncan and Heer2003; Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Fisher, Jordan, Edmisten, Stewart and York2012; Maybank et al. Reference Maybank, Yoshida and Grover1978; Webster et al. Reference Webster, Hensley, Blouin, Harrell and Bond2015). Consequently, a preliminary field test was conducted to evaluate several rates of paraquat and fomesafen on corn to identify an appropriate sublethal rate for each herbicide before initiating the current studies. On the basis of findings of the pilot study, paraquat (Gramoxone SL 2.0, Syngenta) or fomesafen (Reflex 2L, Syngenta) were applied at 105 and 35 g ai ha−1, respectively, representing 12.5% of the labeled preplant rate for soybean and cotton. Herbicide treatments in each experiment were applied to the center two rows of each plot at planting (PRE) or when corn reached V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 (Hanway Reference Hanway1963). Application timings were chosen to represent a range of plausible exposure timings based on typical corn planting dates and PRE herbicide applications for cotton and soybean systems. In addition, a nontreated control (NTC) was included in each experiment for comparison.

In both experiments, herbicide treatments were applied with nonionic surfactant (Activator 90, Loveland Products, 3005 Rocky Mountain Ave., Loveland, CO 80538) and ammonium sulfate (Class Act NG, Winfield Solutions, P.O. Box 64589, St. Paul, MN 55164) at 0.5% and 2.5% vol/vol, respectively. Herbicide treatments at Stoneville were applied with either a tractor-mounted sprayer equipped with XR 11002 nozzles (TeeJet Technologies, Spraying Systems Co., P.O. Box 7900, Wheaton, IL 60187) calibrated to deliver 140 L ha−1 at 303 kPa or a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with AIRMIX 11002 nozzles (Greenleaf Technologies, P.O. Box 1767, Covington, LA 70434) calibrated to deliver 140 L ha−1 at 248 kPa. At Starkville and Brooksville, all herbicide treatments were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with AIXR 110015 nozzles (TeeJet Technologies, Spraying Systems Co., P.O. Box 7900, Wheaton, IL 60187) calibrated to deliver 140 L ha−1 at 290 kPa.

Estimates of corn injury were visually evaluated 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT on a scale of 0% (no symptoms) to 100% (plant death). Heights of five randomly selected plants were measured from the soil surface to the uppermost extended leaf tip 14 DAT. Corn height subsamples were averaged for each plot and then converted to a percentage of the NTC. This transformation accounted for differential heights due to maturity rather than herbicide treatment, because herbicide treatments occurred across a wide range of growth stages. At physiological maturity, ears from five random plants per plot were collected to determine average ear length and number of kernel rows. The center two rows of each plot were then harvested with a small-plot combine and yields were adjusted to 15% moisture.

All data were subjected to mixed model ANOVA using PROC GLIMMIX and means were separated with the LSMEANS function at α = 0.05 (SAS, version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). In the ANOVA model, growth stage at application was considered a fixed effect, whereas site-year and block (nested within site-years) were considered random effects to allow for inferences across multiple environments (Blouin et al. Reference Blouin, Webster and Bond2011).

Results and Discussion

No differences in injury were observed 3 DAT when corn was exposed to fomesafen from V1 to V7; injury ranged from 30% to 38% (Table 2). However, corn exposure to fomesafen PRE and at V9 resulted in 0% and 8% injury 3 DAT, respectively. At 7 DAT, corn exposure to fomesafen at V5 resulted in 38% injury, whereas exposure at V3 and V7 resulted in 23% and 25% injury, respectively. Fomesafen exposure at V1 or V9 resulted in 18% and 14% injury 7 DAT, respectively. Similarly, corn has been shown to be more sensitive to mesotrione at V5 than V3 or V4 (Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Young and Matthews2002). By 14 DAT, corn injury from fomesafen exposure at V3, V5, or V7 ranged from 22% to 27%. At 21 DAT, the greatest levels of corn injury resulted from fomesafen at V5 (16%) or V7 (18%). Likewise, corn injury at 21 DAT from fomesafen exposure at V1, V3, or V9 ranged from 9% to 11%. By 28 DAT, only exposure at V5, V7, or V9 resulted in injury greater than 10%. Overall, fomesafen exposure at V5 or V7 consistently caused the greatest levels of corn injury across all evaluations. At approximately the V6 growth stage is when the growing point of corn is first at or slightly above the soil surface (Hanway Reference Hanway1963). This suggests that the higher injury levels and relative lack in recovery from fomesafen exposure at V5 or V7 could be due to damage to the growing point.

Table 2. Corn injury after exposure to fomesafen (35 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

a Data are pooled across 7 site-years.

b Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.05).

c Growth stages as described by Hanway (Reference Hanway1963).

d Abbreviation: DAT, days after treatment.

Corn height 14 DAT was reduced 15% and 14% from the NTC when fomesafen exposure occurred at V5 or V7, respectively (Table 3). Similarly, corn exposure to glufosinate at 53 g ai ha−1 at V5 or V6 reduces plant heights up to 21% (Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Griffin, Linscombe and Webster2003). In the current experiment, yield losses were only observed from fomesafen exposure at V1 or V7, which were 1,215 and 1,133 kg ha−1 losses, respectively. No differences in ear length were observed, indicating that yield loss was not a function of ear length. In addition, the number of rows of kernels from all treatments were similar to that of the NTC; however, fomesafen exposure at V7 (the approximate stage at which ear girth is determined) resulted in 0.9 fewer kernel rows than V3 (Hanway Reference Hanway1963). Although yield loss from fomesafen at V7 was somewhat expected, based on earlier injury and height reduction, yield loss from exposure at V1 was peculiar, because the V1 exposure time did not result in height reduction. Also, fomesafen at V5, which resulted in the greatest levels of injury and height reductions among growth stages, did not result in yield loss. Ellis et al. (Reference Ellis, Griffin, Linscombe and Webster2003) reported glufosinate at 53 g ai ha−1 applied to V6 to V9 corn caused 13% and 11% yield reductions, respectively. In addition, corn yield loss is greater after later applications of foramsulfuron and nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron at V8 and V12 (Bunting et al. Reference Bunting, Sprague and Riechers2004; Swanton et al. Reference Swanton, Chandler, Elmes, Murphy and Anderson1996). Hanway (Reference Hanway1963) reported that frost or hail damage at V3 to V5 growth stages or earlier that causes defoliation only results in minimal yield loss because the growing point is still protected underground. This somewhat explains the slight yield loss observed from fomesafen exposure at V1. However, further reduction in yield from fomesafen exposure at growth stages later than V5 was not observed. This could be due simply to a high tolerance level at the dose tested.

Table 3. Corn characteristics after exposure to fomesafen (35 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

a Data are pooled across 7 site-years.

b Growth stages as described by Hanway (Reference Hanway1963).

c Abbreviations: DAT, days after treatment; NTC, nontreated control.

d Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.05).

Injury to corn when fomesafen was applied PRE did not exceed 5% at any evaluation interval, and plant height and yield were similar to that of the NTC (Tables 2 and 3). This was surprising, considering the product label requires a 10-mo plant-back interval after application of the full labeled rate (Anonymous 2016). However, the rate used (35 g ha−1) coupled with soil OM of at least 1.2% may have resulted in conditions favorable for herbicide adsorption and reduced herbicide availability (Cobucci et al. Reference Cobucci, Prates, Falcao and Rezende1998; Guo et al. Reference Guo, Zhu, Shi and Sun2003; Mueller et al. Reference Mueller, Boswell, Mueller and Steckel2014; Rauch et al. Reference Rauch, Bellinder, Brainard, Lane and Thies2007; Weber Reference Weber1993).

Corn exposure to paraquat at V3 or V5 resulted in 65% and 62% injury 3 DAT, respectively (Table 4). Although paraquat exposure at V1, V7, or V9 resulted in lower injury rates than exposure at V3 or V5, injury was still 49% to 54%. Corn injury was similar across all exposure times 7 DAT, ranging from 50% to 59%. The paraquat injury rate in corn was 44% after exposure at V1 (14 DAT), whereas exposure at V3 resulted in 60% injury. Likewise, among POST timings, paraquat exposure at V1 resulted in the lowest injury of 35% and 26% at the 21 and 28 DAT evaluations, respectively. However, no differences in injury were observed from paraquat exposure at V3 to V9, 21 and 28 DAT. Corn injury from paraquat applied PRE was not observed at any evaluation interval.

Table 4. Corn injury after exposure to paraquat (105 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

a All data are pooled across 7 site-years.

b Growth stages as described by Hanway (Reference Hanway1963).

c Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.05).

d Abbreviation: DAT, days after treatment.

Paraquat present in soil irreversibly binds to colloids, resulting in almost complete unavailability for absorption by emerging corn seedlings (Tucker et al. Reference Tucker, Pack, Ospenson, Omid and Thomas1969). Henry et al. (Reference Henry, Shaw, Reddy, Bruce and Tamhankar2004) reported corn injury from paraquat applied at 56 or 225 g ha−1 to V5 to V7 corn was between 71% and 94% at 4 to 10 DAT. Corn injury from paraquat in the current study applied at 105 g ha−1 to V5 or V7 corn was 49% to 62% at 3 to 14 DAT (Table 4). The large differences in corn injury from paraquat in the current study compared to the findings of Henry et al. (Reference Henry, Shaw, Reddy, Bruce and Tamhankar2004) likely were due to the difference in rates used and growing conditions. Henry et al. (Reference Henry, Shaw, Reddy, Bruce and Tamhankar2004) conducted their experiment under greenhouse conditions, which can be more favorable for increased herbicide absorption, due to lack of leaf cuticle growth (Hatterman-Valenti et al. Reference Hatterman-Valenti, Pitty and Owen2006; Schonherr and Baur Reference Schonherr and Baur1994).

Corn height 14 DAT in response to paraquat exposure was highly dependent on growth stage (Table 5). The greatest levels of height reduction resulting from paraquat were observed when exposure occurred at V3 (50%) or V5 (47%). Paraquat exposure at V1 or V9 resulted in 36% and 13% height reductions, respectively. However, paraquat exposure at V7 did not result in corn height reduction. The V7 corn growth stage is the start of rapid internode elongation (Hanway Reference Hanway1963), which could possibly explain the lack of corn height response after V7 paraquat exposure. However, exposure at V9 resulted in 13% height reduction, most likely due to the slowing of internode elongation and beginning of tassel and ear formation that occurs at this growth stage (Hanway Reference Hanway1963). Yield losses were observed from all paraquat exposure times except PRE, indicating that paraquat exposure is never safe on emerged corn. Yield loss of 5,120 kg ha−1 resulted from paraquat exposure at V9 and was possibly due to damage of ear shoot formation (Hanway Reference Hanway1963). Similarly, Hanway (Reference Hanway1963) indicated that corn was more susceptible to yield loss from hail damaged at V9 to V10 than at all earlier stages. Paraquat exposure at either V3, V5, or V7 caused the second greatest yield losses of 2,890 to 3,720 kg ha−1. Paraquat exposure at V1 resulted a yield loss of 1,740 kg ha−1, which was the least amount of yield loss among POST treatments, because plants most likely had more time to recover before reproductive growth. No reductions in ear length compared to the NTC were observed; however, paraquat exposure at V9 caused 2- to 3.2-cm shorter ears than exposure at V1, V3, or V7. Paraquat exposure at V3 or V5 resulted respectively in 1.1 and 1.7 fewer kernel rows than in the NTC. Likewise, Bunting et al. (Reference Bunting, Sprague and Riechers2004) reported corn yield loss from foramsulfuron applied at V8 and V12 was due to ear malformations.

Table 5. Corn characteristics after exposure to paraquat (105 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

a All data are pooled across 7 site-years.

b Growth stages as described by Hanway (Reference Hanway1963).

c Abbreviations: DAT, days after treatment; NTC, nontreated control.

d Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.05).

In summary, growth stage at exposure was very influential on the level of corn response to paraquat or fomesafen. In particular, paraquat was extremely injurious to corn. This is concerning because protoporphyrinogen oxidase–inhibitor resistance has been documented in Palmer amaranth, and paraquat will be relied upon more extensively than fomesafen for preplant applications in soybean and cotton (Giacomini et al. Reference Giacomini, Umphres, Nie, Mueller, Steckel, Young, Scott and Tranel2017; Salas et al. Reference Salas, Burgos, Tranel, Singh, Glasgow, Scott and Nichols2016; Varanasi et al. Reference Varanasi, Brabham, Norsworthy, Nie, Young, Houston, Barber and Scott2018). With the exception of fomesafen exposure at V9, corn yield was generally more affected by paraquat or fomesafen exposure at later growth stages. This is particularly concerning in scenarios when corn is planted in the early portion of the planting window or when preplant herbicide applications are delayed for soybean or cotton and emerged corn would be in later vegetative growth stages. Based on these data, any POST paraquat exposure or fomesafen exposure at V1 or V7 could be considered a failed corn stand warranting termination of the injured crop. However, yield potential of late-planted corn is less than that of corn planted at optimal dates, and dicot crops can be sensitive to carryover of PRE corn herbicides such as atrazine (Brecke et al. Reference Brecke, Currey and Teem1980; Soltani et al. Reference Soltani, Mashhadi, Mesgaran, Cowbrough, Tardiff, Chandler, Nurse, Swanton and Sikkema2011; Van Roekel and Coulter Reference Van Roekel and Coulter2011). In addition, effects of paraquat or fomesafen on corn potentially could be exacerbated by labeled herbicides applied after paraquat or fomesafen exposure, as occurs with glyphosate on non-glyphosate–resistant corn (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Robinson, Young, Loux, Johnson, Nurse, Swanton and Sikkema2009). We acknowledge that the levels of corn injury from true off-target movement events can be more intense depending on herbicide rate, droplet size, and droplet concentration (Banks and Schroeder Reference Banks and Schroeder2002; Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Griffin and Jones2002; McKinlay et al. Reference McKinlay, Ashford and Ford1974; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Ferrell, Webster and Fernandez2017). However, these data indicate that pesticide applicators should exercise extreme caution or avoid applications of paraquat or fomesafen near emerged corn if conditions are conducive for off-target herbicide movement.

Author ORCiDs

Benjamin P. Sperry https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2471-2163; Daniel B. Reynolds https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2607-277X

Acknowledgements

This publication is a contribution of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Material is based on work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch project under accession number 153190. The authors would like to thank the Mississippi Corn Promotion Board for partially funding this research. We thank personnel at Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station facilities for their assistance. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

References

Al-Khatib, K, Claassen, MM, Stahlman, PW, Geier, PW, Regehr, DL, Duncan, SR, Heer, WF (2003) Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Reflex herbicide product label. Syngenta Publication No. SCP 993A-L1Q 0316. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. 51 pGoogle Scholar
[ASABE] American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (2009) Spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra. ASABE Standard S572.1. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. pp 13 Google Scholar
Banks, PA, Schroeder, J (2002) Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol 16:833837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO (2006a) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accession to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Griffin, JL, Ellis, JM, Linscombe, SD, Williams, BJ (2006b) Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol 20:113117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecke, BJ, Currey, WL, Teem, DH (1980) Atrazine persistence in a corn-soybean doublecropping system. Agron J 73:534537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, LR, Robinson, DE, Young, BG, Loux, MM, Johnson, WG, Nurse, RE, Swanton, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Response of corn to simulated glyphosate drift followed by in-crop herbicides. Weed Technol 23:1116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehring, NW, Roth, LO, Santelmann, PW (1973) Plant response to herbicide spray drop size and carrier volume. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 16:636638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, JA, Sprague, CL, Riechers, DE (2004) Corn tolerance as affected by the timing of foramsulfuron applications. Weed Technol 18:757762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, JB, Kells, JJ (1995) Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol 9:356361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobucci, T, Prates, HT, Falcao, CLM, Rezende, MMV (1998) Effect of imazamox, fomesafen, and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci 46:258263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, WD, Steckel, LE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, RC (2015) Evaluation of POST-harvest herbicide applications for seed prevention of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Technol 29:405411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:452460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Hart, WE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, TC (2001) Effect of venture-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 15:7580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, York, AC, Wilcut, JW (2009) Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen, and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol 23:391397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, HC, Sperry, BP, Reynolds, DB, Kruger, GR, Claussen, S (2018) Reducing herbicide particle drift: effect of hooded sprayer and spray quality. Weed Technol 32:714721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, DA, Umphres, AM, Nie, H, Mueller, TC, Steckel, LE, Young, BG, Scott, RC, Tranel, PJ (2017) Two new PPX2 mutations associated with resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides in Amaranthus palmeri . Pest Manag Sci 73:15591563 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givens, WA, Shaw, DR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MDK, Jordan, D (2009) A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol 23:156161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J, Zhu, G, Shi, J, Sun, J (2003) Adsorption, desorption and mobility of fomesafen in Chinese soils. Water Air Soil Poll 148:7785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanway, JJ (1963) Growth stages of corn (Zea mays L.) Agron J 55:487492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, HM, Pitty, A, Owen, MDK (2006) Effect of environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) leaf wax and fluazifop-P absorption. Weed Sci 54:607614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, WB, Shaw, DR, Reddy, KR, Bruce, LM, Tamhankar, HD (2004) Remote sensing to detect herbicide drift on crops. Weed Technol 18:358368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sub-lethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2, 4-D. Weed Technol 26:195206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, BC, Young, BG, Matthews, JL (2002) Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol 16:414420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maybank, JK, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut Contr Assoc J 28:10091014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Ashford, SR, Ford, RJ (1974) Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci 22:3134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Boswell, BW, Mueller, SS, Steckel, LE (2014) Dissipation of fomesafen, saflufenacil, sulfentrazone, and flumioxazin from a Tennessee soil under field conditions. Weed Sci 62:664671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, LN, Steckel, LE, Koger, CH, Main, CL, Mueller, TC (2009) Evaluation of spring and fall burndown application timings on control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 23:335339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, CG (2001a) Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol 15:453460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, CG (2001b) Nozzle, spray volume, and adjuvant effects on carfentrazone and imazamox efficacy. Weed Technol 15:485491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, BJ, Bellinder, RR, Brainard, DC, Lane, M, Thies, JE (2007) Dissipation of fomesafen in New York state soils and potential to cause carryover injury to sweet corn. Weed Technol 21:206212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, King, W, Zablotowicz, RM, Thomson, SJ, Huang, Y, Krutz, LJ (2010) Biological responses to glyphosate drift from aerial application in non-glyphosate-resistant corn. Pest Manag Sci 66:11481154 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichard, DL, Triplett, GB (1983) Paraquat efficacy as influenced by atomizer type. Weed Sci 31:779782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, RA, Burgos, NR, Tranel, PJ, Singh, S, Glasgow, L, Scott, RC, Nichols, RL (2016) Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide in Palmer amaranth from Arkansas. Pest Manag Sci 72:864869 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, DR (1996) Development of stale seedbed weed control programs for southern row crops. Weed Sci 44:413416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonherr, J, Baur, P (1994) Modeling penetration of plant cuticles by crop protection agents and effects of adjuvants on their rates of penetration. Pestic Sci 42:185208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, HC, Ferrell, JA, Webster, TM, Fernandez, JV (2017) Cotton response to simulated auxin herbicide drift using standard and ultra-low carrier volumes. Weed Technol 31:19 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Mashhadi, HR, Mesgaran, MB, Cowbrough, M, Tardiff, FJ, Chandler, K, Nurse, RE, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2011) The effect of residual corn herbicides on injury and yield of soybean seeded in the same season. Can J Plant Sci 91:571576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Chandler, K, Elmes, MJ, Murphy, SD, Anderson, GW (1996) Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol 10:288294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, BV, Pack, DE, Ospenson, JN, Omid, A, Thomas, WD (1969) Paraquat soil bonding and plant response. Weed Sci 17:448451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service (2010) Field Crops Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates October 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. P 41 Google Scholar
Van Roekel, RJ, Coulter, JA (2011) Agronomic responses of corn to planting date and plant density. Agron J 103:14141422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varanasi, VK, Brabham, C, Norsworthy, JK, Nie, H, Young, BG, Houston, M, Barber, T, Scott, RC (2018) A statewide survey of PPO-inhibitor resistance and the prevalent target-site mechanism in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accession from Arkansas. Weed Sci 66:149158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, JB (1993) Ionization and sorption of fomesafen and atrazine by soils and soil constituents. Pestic Sci 39:3138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2015) Impact of off-site deposition of glufosinate to non-clearfield rice. Weed Technol 29:207216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Planting dates, locations, corn hybrids, and seeding rates for experiments evaluating corn agronomic performance after exposure to sublethal rates of fomesafen or paraquat at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.

Figure 1

Table 2. Corn injury after exposure to fomesafen (35 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

Figure 2

Table 3. Corn characteristics after exposure to fomesafen (35 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

Figure 3

Table 4. Corn injury after exposure to paraquat (105 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a

Figure 4

Table 5. Corn characteristics after exposure to paraquat (105 g ha−1) at PRE, V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 in Brooksville, Starkville, and Stoneville, MS, from 2013 to 2015.a