| |
| Web URL(s): | http://wssaabstracts.com/public/6/abstract-34.html
Last checked: 12/22/2011 |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Content Type: | Abstract or Summary only |
|---|
| Author(s): | Yenish, Joe;
Yoshida, Harvey;
Cummings, Daniel C.;
Johnson, Kevin D.;
Gast, Roger |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Yenish: Dow AgroSciences, Pullman, WA; Yoshida: Dow AgroSciences, Richland, WA; Cummings: Dow AgroSciences, Perry, OK; Johnson: Dow AgroSciences, Barnesville, MN; Gast: Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN |
|---|
| Title: | Comparison of pyroxsulam formulations for grass and broadleaf weed control in the Western U.S. |
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | Albuquerque, NM: March 10-12, 2009 |
|---|
| Source: | Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science. Vol. 64, 2011, p. 32. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Newark, CA: Western Society of Weed Science |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Comparisons; Formulations; Herbicide profile; Herbicide resistance; Herbicide trials; Pyroxsulam; Weed control
|
|---|
| Trade Names: | PowerFlex |
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Pyroxsulam is the active ingredient in Dow AgroSciences PowerFlex® herbicide. PowerFlex is labeled for use in winter wheat. The currently available PowerFlex formulation contains 7.5% of active ingredient in a water dispersible granule. A potential new formulation being evaluated contains 13.1% pyroxsulam. The studies described herein were designed to compare crop tolerance and weed control of the two formulations. Crop tolerance studies were conducted at 6 and 7 locations in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Each formulation was applied at 18.4 g (1X) and 36.8 g (2X) pyroxsulam/ha with nonionic surfactant and ammonium sulfate. In each year, only 1 location showed differences between formulations for crop tolerance. In both cases, formulation differences occurred only with the 2X rate of pyroxsulam. In 2009, the differences persisted throughout the growing season, while in 2010 differences were transitional and were not observed in ratings made later than 3 days after application. Generally, injury ratings did not exceed 10% although there were a few exceptions. Separate grass weed control studies were conducted at 13 locations in each year. Pyroxsulam rates for the formulation comparison were 13.8 and 18.4 g ai/ha applied with nonionic surfactant and ammonium sulfate. Targeted grasses were Italian ryegrass and downy brome. Differences in grass control between formulations only occurred in 6 of the 26 locations. Moreover, there was not a consistent pattern in which formulation provided better control nor were there consistent differences within or between rates. Thus, in summary both formulations performed equally well for weed control and crop tolerance." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | This item is an abstract only! |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Yenish, J., H. Yoshida, D. C. Cummings, K. D. Johnson, and R. Gast. 2011. Comparison of pyroxsulam formulations for grass and broadleaf weed control in the Western U.S.. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 64:p. 32. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=195578 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 195578. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
http://wssaabstracts.com/public/6/abstract-34.html
Last checked: 12/22/2011 |
| 
MSU catalog number: b2224583a |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
