2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.12.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential responses of two types of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to autumn- and spring-applied mesosulfuron-methyl

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The remaining cultivars did not reveal any negative reaction to pendimethalin + isoproturon mixture. This fact shows for evident differences in winter wheat cultivars tolerance to herbicides and it confirms the results obtained in the previous studies (Sikkema et al 2007;Kong et al 2009).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…The remaining cultivars did not reveal any negative reaction to pendimethalin + isoproturon mixture. This fact shows for evident differences in winter wheat cultivars tolerance to herbicides and it confirms the results obtained in the previous studies (Sikkema et al 2007;Kong et al 2009).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Anon., ). The response of wheat to the timing of plant growth regulators (Kettlewell et al , ; Bodson & Durdu, ; Gandee et al , , ; Rajala & Peltonen‐Sainio, ; Hussain & Leitch, ; Wiersma et al , ; Huberman et al , ; Peng et al , ), herbicides (Wilson & Cussans, ; Tottman, ; Martin et al , ; Leaden et al , ; Pageau & Lajeunesse, ; Kong et al , ; Robinson et al , ), insecticides (Carter et al , ; Mann et al , ; Oakley et al , ; Kennedy & Connery, ), fungicides (Nelson & Sutton, ; Cook & Hayward, ; Guy et al , ; Goulds & Fitt, ; Duczek & Jones‐Flory, ; Cook et al , ; Nicolas, ; Wiersma & Motteberg, ; Marroni et al , ; Edwards & Godley, ; Wegulo et al , ) and nitrogen application (Darwinkel, ; Powlson et al , ; Sylvester‐Bradley et al , ; Maidl et al , ; Sticksel et al , , ; Flowers et al , ; Weisz et al , ; Efretuei et al , ) are all commonly interpreted with reference to DGS. Similarly, the responses to other agronomic decisions, such as sowing density, can be interpreted with reference to canopy formation and architecture at particular DGS (Whaley et al , ).…”
Section: Growth Stage Scores Defining Cereal Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All these factors could affect herbicide sensitivity or tolerance of crop plants. However, differences were detected on families, species and cultivars levels in response to herbicides and therefore any selective herbicide on a specific crop cultivar may confer injury to other cultivars (Felix et al, 2007;Abit at al., 2009;Kong et al, 2009;Jin et al, 2010). However, production of cuticular wax tends to be reduced under warm humid conditions which may resulted in a higher retention of spray solution on crop leaves and more injury under such conditions.…”
Section: Crop Morphologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differences have been also reported between different crop cultivars in response to the same or different herbicides (Duwayri & Saghir, 1983;Felix et al, 2007;Abit at al., 2009;Kong et al, 2009& Jin et al, 2010 hence differ in morphology, physiology, growth habit and phenology. In addition, cultivars are different in germination, emergence, growth development and duration, physiological and biochemical responses (Grime, 1986).…”
Section: Crop Species /Varietiesmentioning
confidence: 99%