Effect of MON-12037 on Purple (Cyperus rotundus) and Yellow (Cyperus esculentus) Nutsedge

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
William K. Vencill ◽  
John S. Richburg ◽  
John W. Wilcut ◽  
Larry R. Hawf

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the response of purple and yellow nutsedge to selective soil placement of 5 cm of soil treated with MON-12037 above and/or below the nutsedge tubers. MON-12037 at 53 g/ai ha applied as a foliar, soil, or foliar + soil application also were evaluated. MON-12037 placement above, below, or above + below the nutsedge tuber decreased shoot number, shoot dry weight, shoot regrowth dry weight, and root-tuber dry weight production in both species, 30 and 60 d after treatment. MON-12037 applied as a foliar, soil, and foliar + soil treatment was effective in reducing purple nutsedge shoot regrowth dry weight to less than 5% of the non-treated control. Yellow nutsedge shoot regrowth dry weight from the foliar + soil and soil-only applications was less than 1% of the non-treated control.

1993 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 900-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Richburg ◽  
John W. Wilcut ◽  
Glenn R. Wehtje

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the response of purple and yellow nutsedges to selective soil placement of 5 cm of soil treated with imazethapyr above and/or below the nutsedge tubers. Early postemergence (EPOST) or postemergence (POST) imazethapyr treatments at 71 g ai/ha as a foliar, soil, or foliar + soil application was also evaluated. Imazethapyr placement above or below the nutsedge tuber generally increased shoot number, shoot dry weight (SW), shoot regrowth dry weight (SRW), and root tuber dry weight (RTW) production in both species, 28 and 42 days after treatment (DAT) compared with the control. However, the 5-cm above + 5-cm below tuber treatment at 14, 28, and 42 DAT reduced purple nutsedge shoot number, SW, SRW, and RTW to 19, 7, 14, and 26% of the control, respectively. Yellow nutsedge shoot number was 103% of the control with the 5-cm above + 5-cm below tuber treatment 42 DAT. The 5-cm above + 5-cm below tuber treatment reduced yellow nutsedge SW, SRW, and RTW to 43, 44, and 23% of the control, respectively, 28 and 42 DAT. EPOST and POST foliar + soil and soil-only applications reduced SW 28 d after treatment (DAT) to 13% or less of the control for both species. SRWs of both species were ≤ 53% of the control 42 DAT for the soil-only application. The foliar-only treatment was the least effective in SW, SRW, and RTW reductions.


Weed Science ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Richburg ◽  
John W. Wilcut ◽  
Glenn R. Wehtje

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the response of purple and yellow nutsedge to selective placement of 5 cm of soil treated with AC 263,222 above and/or below nutsedge tubers. AC 263,222 applied early POST (EPOST) or POST at 71 g ai ha-1as a foliar, soil, or foliar + soil application also was evaluated. AC 263,222 applied below nutsedge tubers did not reduce purple or yellow nutsedge shoot number, shoot dry weight, shoot regrowth dry weight, or root-tuber dry weight. However, when it was applied above purple nutsedge tubers, shoot dry weight was reduced; and when it was applied above yellow nutsedge tubers, shoot dry weight and root dry weight were reduced. AC 263,222 applied 5 cm above + 5 cm below purple nutsedge tubers reduced shoot number, shoot dry weight, shoot regrowth dry weight, and root dry weight to 9, 4, 10, and 16% of the control, respectively, in purple nutsedge and to 23, 16, 9, and 15% of the control, respectively, in yellow nutsedge. AC 263,222 applied EPOST or POST reduced shoot dry weight, shoot regrowth dry weight, and root dry weight of purple nutsedge to less than or equal to 11, 7, and 27% of the control, respectively, and to less than or equal to 10, 16, and 29% of the control, respectively, for yellow nutsedge with no differences between application methods. The foliar and soil activity of AC 263,222 for purple and yellow nutsedge control provides an advantage over currently registered peanut herbicides.


Weed Science ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Wilcut

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine purple and yellow nutsedge response to selective placement of a 5-cm layer of pyrithiobac sodium-treated soil above, below, or above and below nutsedge tubers. Pyrithiobac sodium at 36 or 72 g ae ha−1applied postemergence as foliar, soil, or foliar and soil treatments also was evaluated. Pyrithiobac sodium applied above, below, or above and below nutsedge tubers reduced yellow and purple nutsedge shoot number, shoot regrowth, and root-tuber dry weight at least 90%. Foliar-only treatment of pyrithiobac sodium was less effective at reducing emerged purple and yellow nutsedge numbers than application to soil only or to foliage and soil. Best reduction in yellow and purple nutsedge growth with pyrithiobac sodium was obtained with soil-incorporated treatments.


1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Peterson ◽  
H. F. Harrison

The allelopathic influence of sweet potato cultivar ‘Regal’ on purple nutsedge was compared to the influence on yellow nutsedge under controlled conditions. Purple nutsedge shoot dry weight, total shoot length and tuber numbers were significantly lower than the controls (47, 36, and 19% inhibition, respectively). The influence on the same parameters for yellow nutsedge (35, 21, and 43% inhibition, respectively) were not significantly different from purple nutsedge. Sweet potato shoot dry weight was inhibited by purple and yellow nutsedge by 42% and 45%, respectively. The major allelopathic substance from ‘Regal’ root periderm tissue was isolated and tested in vitro on the two sedges. The I50's for shoot growth, root number, and root length were 118, 62, and 44 μg/ml, respectively, for yellow nutsedge. The I50's for root number and root length were 91 and 85 μg/ml, respectively, for purple nutsedge and the I50for shoot growth could not be calculated.


Weed Science ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. S. Hardcastle ◽  
R. E. Wilkinson

Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) tubers were stored at 5 C in soil treated at 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, or 10 lb/A 2,6-dichlorobenzontrile (dichlobenil) for 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12 weeks. Respiration of dormant tubers differed with species, unaffected by period of storage or dichlobenil concentration. Sprouting of untreated tubers decreased from 90% after 2 weeks storage to 43% after 12 weeks. Yellow nutsedge sprout production was uniform in time; purple nutsedge sprouting progressed to an 8-week high. Increased concentrations of dichlobenil progressively inhibited sprouting.


Weed Science ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. E. Keeley ◽  
R. J. Thullen

Nonradioactive and14C-labeled arsenical herbicides were applied to foliage of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundusL.) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentusL.) grown under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions. Disodium methanearsonate (DSMA) controlled purple nutsedge better at 20 and 29 C than at 13 C. Monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA) was as effective in controlling this weed at 13 C as at 20 and 29 C. DSMA and MSMA provided 80% or greater control of yellow nutsedge grown at the three temperatures. When plants were treated with14C-DSMA and14C-MSMA, greater radioactivity was detected in yellow nutsedge than in purple nutsedge. The apparent differential herbicide penetration of purple and yellow nutsedge leaves is believed to have contributed substantially to the control of nutsedge observed in this study.


Weed Science ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. E. Keeley ◽  
C. H. Carter ◽  
J. H. Miller

The following herbicides were evaluated for relative phytotoxicity to cotton(Gossypium hirsutumL. ‘Acala SJ-1′), purple nutsedge(Cyperus rotundusL.), and yellow nutsedge(Cyperus esculentusL.) under greenhouse conditions: 2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)acetanilide (alachlor); 2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl-N-(butoxymethyl)acetanilide (CP-53619); 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1,2,4-oxadiazolidine-3,5-dione (VCS-438); 4-chloro-5-(dimethylamino)-2-α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)-3(2H)-pyridazinone (San-6706); 2-(α naphthoxy)-N,N-diethyl-propionamide (R-7465); andS-isopropyl 5-ethyl-2-methyl-piperidine-1-carbiothioate (R-12001). Herbicides were incorporated 6.35 cm deep, at rates of 1.12, 2.24, and 4.48 kg/ha, into a fine sandy loam prior to planting. All treatments except the low rate of alachlor and VCS-438 controlled yellow nutsedge for 8 weeks. R-7465 and R-12001 at 1.12 kg/ha and San-6706 at 2.24 kg/ha controlled purple nutsedge for 8 weeks. Alachlor and CP-53619 were somewhat less effective against purple nutsedge than yellow nutsedge, but their intermediate rates suppressed purple nutsedge for 4 weeks. Even the high rate of VCS-438 was ineffective against purple nutsedge. Cotton, in terms of fresh shoot weight, exhibited considerable tolerance to 1.12 and 2.24 kg/ha of VCS-438 and CP-53619 and 1.12 kg/ha of R-7465. Applications of 2.24 kg/ha of CP-53619 and 1.12 kg/ha of R-7465, however, suppressed the development of lateral roots of cotton. Other rates of these herbicides and all rates of alachlor, R-12001, and San-6706 moderately to severely injured cotton in most of the experiments.


2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 294-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis W. Gannon ◽  
Fred H. Yelverton ◽  
Lane P. Tredway

Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of selective herbicide placement on sedge shoot number, shoot weight, and root weight. Sulfentrazone, sulfosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron were applied to soil only, foliage only, or soil plus foliage. Sulfentrazone provided greater yellow nutsedge and false green kyllinga growth reduction compared to purple nutsedge. Sulfosulfuron provided greater purple nutsedge and false green kyllinga growth reduction compared to yellow nutsedge; these species responded similarly to trifloxysulfuron. Soil and soil plus foliar applications provided the highest level of growth suppression, indicating herbicide–soil contact is required for optimum sedge control with these three herbicides. Future research should evaluate techniques that optimize herbicide–soil contact to improve herbicide efficacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document