Carinata Tolerance to Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 877-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon G. Leon ◽  
Jason A. Ferrell ◽  
Michael J. Mulvaney
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Canopy Closure ◽  
Winter Crop ◽  
Control Volunteer ◽  
Summer Temperatures ◽  
Favorable Conditions ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

Carinata is a new biofuel crop that was recently introduced in the southeastern USA as a winter crop. This crop is competitive after canopy closure, but there is a need for weed control options at earlier growth stages. Field experiments were conducted from 2014 to 2016 to determine the safety of several PRE and POST herbicides in carinata. Pendimethalin at 1080 g ai ha−1 applied preplant incorporated (PPI) and PRE caused no carinata injury, or plant density and yield reductions. S-metolachlor was also safe at 694, 1070, 1390, and 2780 g ai ha−1 applied at PRE, 3 d after planting (DAP) and at the 2- to 6-leaf stage. Flumioxazin at 72 g ai ha−1 applied PRE was highly injurious on carinata preventing its establishment. Among the POST herbicides evaluated, clopyralid at 210 g ae ha1 and clethodim at 136 g ai ha−1 caused minor injury to carinata but did not reduce yield compared to the nontreated control. Acifluorfen at 420 g ai ha−1, bentazon at 840 g ai ha−1, and carfentrazone at 18 g ai ha−1 applied POST to carinata caused 75 to 100% injury. Under stressful conditions (i.e. high summer temperatures) all POST herbicides caused more injury than under more favorable conditions for growth in Florida (i.e. winter). The present study identified pendimethalin, S-metolachlor, clopyralid and clethodim as potential herbicides for weed control in carinata, and flumioxazin, acifluorfen, bentazon, and carfentrazone as herbicides that can be used to control volunteer carinata plants in rotational crops.

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (03) ◽  
pp. 431-440
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Peters ◽  
Andrew B. Lueck ◽  
Aaron L. Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Control System ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Stand Density ◽  
Sucrose Content ◽  
Root Yield ◽  
Visible Injury ◽  
Herbicide Treatments

AbstractSugarbeet growers only recently have combined ethofumesate, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-P in a weed control system for waterhemp control. Sugarbeet plant density, visible stature reduction, root yield, percent sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose were measured in field experiments at five environments between 2014 and 2016. Sugarbeet stand density and stature reduction occurred in some but not all environments. Stand density was reduced with PRE application of S-metolachlor at 1.60 kg ai ha–1 and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 alone or followed by POST applications of dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ai ha–1. Sugarbeet visible stature was reduced when dimethenamid-P followed PRE treatments. Stature reduction was greatest with ethofumesate at 1.68 or 4.37 kg ha–1 PRE and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 POST. Stature reduction ranged from 0 to 32% 10 d after treatment (DAT), but sugarbeet recovered quickly and visible injury was negligible 23 DAT. Although root yield and recoverable sucrose were similar across herbicide treatments and environments, we caution against the use of S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 in sugarbeet.

Field Pea and Lentil Tolerance to Interrow Cultivation

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Stanley ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe ◽  
Dilshan Benaragama ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S. N. Duddu
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Row Crops ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractInterrow cultivation is a selective, in-crop mechanical weed control tool that has the potential to control weeds later in the growing season with less crop damage compared with other in-crop mechanical weed control tools. To our knowledge, no previous research has been conducted on the tolerance of narrow-row crops to interrow cultivation. The objective of this experiment was to determine the tolerance of field pea and lentil to interrow cultivation. Replicated field experiments were conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2014 and 2015. Weekly cultivation treatments began at the 4-node stage of each crop, continuing for 6 wk. Field pea and lentil yield linearly declined with later crop stages of cultivation. Cultivating multiple times throughout the growing season reduced yield by 15% to 30% in both crops. Minimal yield loss occurred when interrow cultivation was conducted once at early growth stages of field pea and lentil; however, yield loss increased with delayed and more frequent cultivation events.

scholarly journals Tolerance of Transplanted Seashore Dropseed to Pre- and Postemergence Herbicides

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orville C. Baldos ◽  
Joseph DeFrank ◽  
Glenn Sakamoto
Keyword(s):  
Acetic Acid ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Aboveground Biomass ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Biomass Accumulation ◽  
Table Salt ◽  
Foliar Injury ◽  
Crop Response ◽  
Response Measures ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

Field experiments were conducted to assess the tolerance of seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus) to pre- and postemergence herbicides labeled for roadside right-of-way use. Dithiopyr (0.25 and 0.50 lb/acre a.i.), trifluralin + isoxaben (2.0 + 0.5 and 4.0 + 1.0 lb/acre a.i.), oxyfluorfen (0.25 and 0.50 lb/acre a.i.), oxadiazon (2.0 and 4.0 lb/acre a.i.), and granular table salt (99% sodium chloride, 1% sodium silicoaluminate; 83% of particles 0.5–0.25 mm in diameter, 400 lb/acre a.i.) were applied at 2 and 84 days after transplanting (DAT). Pre-emergence weed control with crop response measures as visual foliar injury ratings and aboveground biomass accumulation were recorded 38 days after the second application of herbicides (DAH2). Crop response to postemergence herbicides aminopyralid (1.10 lb/acre a.i.), triclopyr (3.0 lb/acre a.i.), a prepackaged mix of carfentrazone + (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid + mecoprop + dicamba (0.02 + 1.11 + 0.22 + 0.11 lb/acre a.i.), and sulfosulfuron (0.06 lb/acre a.i.) applied at 70 and 98 DAT included visual foliar injury ratings and aboveground biomass accumulation at 28 DAH2. Although all pre-emergence herbicides (except table salt) exhibited acceptable weed control ratings, only oxadiazon and oxyfluorfen showed exceptional weed control and safety. The postemergence herbicide sulfosulfuron was the least injurious to seashore dropseed. The mixture of carfentrazone + (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid + mecoprop + dicamba and triclopyr were the most injurious to seashore dropseed and should only be used as a directed spray treatment. An unintended overapplication of aminopyralid was phytotoxic, but it did not lead to complete plant death at 28 DAH2. These data identified oxadiazon, oxyfluorfen, and sulfosulfuron as safe and effective for establishing transplanted seashore dropseed plugs.

Influence of Picloram Alone or Plus 2,4-D on Control of Wild Oats (Avena fatua) with Four Postemergence Herbicides

Weed Science ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 889-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Ashley O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Acetic Acid ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Broad Spectrum ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Avena Fatua ◽  
Propanoic Acid ◽  
Wild Oats ◽  
Commercial Mixture ◽  
Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

Field experiments were conducted for 2 yr to determine the influence of picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) and a commercial mixture of picloram plus 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] (1:16, w/w) on control of wild oats (Avena fatua L. # AVEFA) with four postemergence herbicides. The phytotoxicity to wild oats of barban (4-chloro-2-butynyl m-chlorocarbanilate) or difenzoquat (1,2-dimethyl-3,5-diphenyl-1H-pyrazolium) in 1981 and diclofop {2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-phenoxy] propanoic acid} or flamprop [N-benzoyl-N-(3-chloro-4-fluorophenyl)-DL-alanine] in 1981 and 1982 was reduced when these herbicides were applied in a mixture with picloram plus 2,4-D. Consequently, the use of these mixtures for broad-spectrum weed control in one spray operation is not recommended. Picloram applied at a rate equivalent to the amount present in the picloram plus 2,4-D mixture did not influence the control of wild oats obtained with any herbicide, indicating that the antagonism was due to the 2,4-D component of the picloram plus 2,4-D mixture.

Control of skunk-vine (Paederia foetidaL.) with preemergence and postemergence herbicides in central Florida during the winter season

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
S. Christopher Marble ◽  
Annette Chandler
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiments ◽  
Winter Season ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Central Florida ◽  
Greenhouse Experiments ◽  
Paederia Foetida ◽  
Application Methods ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

AbstractSkunk-vine (Paederia foetidaL.) is an invasive vine native to eastern and southern Asia and is widely distributed in Florida, Hawaii, and other southeastern U.S. states; however, little research has focused on herbicide control. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to determine efficacy of aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, glyphosate, imazapic, triclopyr amine, and triclopyr ester at low and high labeled rates when foliar applied toP. foetidaat various growth stages in greenhouse experiments. Longer-term control was evaluated in field experiments in central Florida using the same herbicides. PRE herbicides labeled for use in landscape plantings, including dimethenamid-P, flumioxazin, indaziflam, isoxaben, and prodiamine, were also evaluated in greenhouse trials by seeding containers withP. foetidaseed. In greenhouse experiments, POST herbicides, including aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, glyphosate, both triclopyr formulations, and the high rate of fluroxypyr (0.24 kg ae ha−1), provided >90% control across all growth stages at 4 mo after treatment with no regrowth observed. Imazapic provided 49% to 89% control, with efficacy decreasing withP. foetidasize, and generally provided less control than other treatments. Field experiments confirmed results from greenhouse studies. In PRE trials, flumioxazin and prodiamine provided better control than all other PRE herbicides evaluated, reducing shoot weights by 99% and 84%, respectively, compared with nontreated controls. Our data suggest all herbicides evaluated POST could potentially be used to manageP. foetida, although less control was achieved with imazapic compared with other herbicides. Further research is needed to determine herbicide efficacy on more mature plants and to develop application methods that would be less injurious to non-target vegetation. In landscapes, flumioxazin or prodiamine could be used for PRE control, but POST options that are labeled for landscape use should be identified in future research.

Tolerance and Selectivity of Cereal Species and Cultivars to Postemergence Weed Harrowing

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Rasmussen ◽  
Helle H. Nielsen ◽  
Hanne Gundersen
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Soil Cover ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Barley Cultivars ◽  
Cereal Species

POST weed harrowing and other cultivation methods to control weeds in early crop growth stages may result in crop damage due to low selectivity between crop and weeds. Crop tolerance to cultivation plays an important role but it has not been clearly defined and analyzed. We introduce a procedure for analyzing crop tolerance on the basis of digital image analysis. Crop tolerance is defined as the ability of the crop to avoid yield loss from cultivation in the absence of weeds, and it has two components: resistance and recovery. Resistance is the ability of the crop to resist soil covering and recovery is the ability to recover from it. Soil covering is the percentage of the crop that has been buried because of cultivation. We analyzed data from six field experiments, four experiments with species of small grains, barley, oat, wheat, and triticale, and two experiments with barley cultivars with different abilities to suppress weeds. The order of species' tolerance to weed harrowing was triticale > wheat > barley > oat and the differences were mainly caused by different abilities to recover from soil covering. At 25% soil covering, grain yield loss in triticale was 0.5%, in wheat 2.5%, in barley 3.7%, and in oat 6.5%. Tolerance, resistance, and recovery, however, were influenced by year, especially for oat and barley. There was no evidence of differences between barley cultivars in terms of tolerance indicating that differences among species are more important than differences among cultivars. Selectivity analysis made it possible to calculate the crop yield loss due to crop damage associated with a certain percentage of weed control. In triticale, 80% weed control was associated with 22% crop soil cover on average, which reduced grain yield 0.4% on average in the absence of weeds. Corresponding values for wheat, barley, and oat were 23, 21, and 20% crop soil cover and 2.3, 3.6, and 5.1% grain yield loss.

Growth Stage-Influenced Differential Response of Foxtail and Pigweed Species to Broadcast Flaming

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santiago M. Ulloa ◽  
Avishek Datta ◽  
Stevan Z. Knezevic
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Common Waterhemp ◽  
Species Response ◽  
Redroot Pigweed ◽  
Green Foxtail

Propane flaming could be an effective alternative tool for weed control in organic cropping systems. However, response of major weeds to broadcast flaming must be determined to optimize its proper use. Therefore, field experiments were conducted at the Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, Concord, NE in 2007 and 2008 using six propane doses and four weed species, including green foxtail, yellow foxtail, redroot pigweed, and common waterhemp. Our objective was to describe dose–response curves for weed control with propane. Propane flaming response was evaluated at three different growth stages for each weed species. The propane doses were 0, 12, 31, 50, 68, and 87 kg ha−1. Flaming treatments were applied utilizing a custom-built flamer mounted on a four-wheeler (all-terrain vehicle) moving at a constant speed of 6.4 km h−1. The response of the weed species to propane flaming was evaluated in terms of visual ratings of weed control and dry matter recorded at 14 d after treatment. Weed species response to propane doses were described by log-logistic models relating propane dose to visual ratings or plant dry matter. Overall, response of the weed species to propane flaming varied among species, growth stages, and propane dose. In general, foxtail species were more tolerant than pigweed species. For example, about 85 and 86 kg ha−1were the calculated doses needed for 90% dry matter reduction in five-leaf green foxtail and four-leaf yellow foxtail compared with significantly lower doses of 68 and 46 kg ha−1of propane for five-leaf redroot pigweed and common waterhemp, respectively. About 90% dry matter reduction in pigweed species was achieved with propane dose ranging from 40 to 80 kg ha−1, depending on the growth stage when flaming was conducted. A similar dose of 40 to 60 kg ha−1provided 80% reduction in dry matter for both foxtail species when flaming was done at their vegetative growth stage. However, none of the doses we tested could provide 90% dry matter reduction in foxtail species at flowering stage. It is important to note that foxtail species started regrowing 2 to 3 wk after flaming. Broadcast flaming has potential for control or suppression of weeds in organic farming.

Herbicide-tolerant canola: weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada

2000 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. N. Harker ◽  
R. E. Blackshaw ◽  
K. J. Kirkland ◽  
D. A. Derksen ◽  
D. Wall
Keyword(s):  
Brassica Napus ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Western Canada ◽  
Brassica Napus L ◽  
Standard Application ◽  
Seed Yields

Field experiments were conducted at five western Canadian locations in 1996 and 1997 to compare weed control and canola (Brassica napus L.) seed yields in the three major her-bicide-tolerant canola (HTC) systems. The main objective of this study was to determine if significant weed control and yield advantages could be expected by using herbicides "designated" for HTC compared to a more "standard" application of sethoxydim plus ethametsulfuron. In 3 of 10 site-years, glyphosate in Quest canola and imazethapyr/imazamox in 45A71 canola provided a yield advantage over the standard treatment. The yield advantages were restricted to the Lacombe and Lethbridge sites and ranged from 13 to 39% increases over the sethoxydim plus ethametsulfuron treatments. Among the HTC, weed control was usually greatest with glyphosate, followed by imazethapyr/imazamox, and then glufosinate. Glufosinate efficacy was often restricted due to advanced growth stages on some weeds. The standard treatment of sethoxydim plus ethametsulfuron did not provide better weed control than glyphosate, but in some cases did improve weed control compared to imazethapyr/imazamox or glufosinate. The HTC provide growers with new opportunities for the control of difficult weeds along with the option to employ in-crop herbicides with new modes of action in canola. Key words: Weed management, transgenic canola

Determination of the Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffroy Gantoli ◽  
Victor Rueda Ayala ◽  
Roland Gerhards
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Weed Competition ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Leaf Stage ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Weed Infestation ◽  
Hand Weeding

Field experiments were conducted in western Atakora, Benin, to determine the critical time period of weed competition in hand-weeded corn. Weeds were removed until different crop growth stages and then allowed to reemerge. Other treatments began weed control at different growth stages (four-, eight-, and ten-leaf stages and flowering) and were maintained until harvest. One treatment was permanently kept weed-free and one treatment was uncontrolled until harvest. Yields without weed competition ranged from 2.8 to 3.4 t ha−1. As expected, yield loss increased with duration of weed infestation and ranged from 38 to 65% compared to permanent weed-free plots. In three out of four site-years, the critical period for weed control started at the four- to six-leaf stage and continued until ten-leaf stage or flowering of corn. Approximately four hand-weeding applications were required in this critical period of weed control.

Characterization of carinata tolerance to select herbicides using field dose-response studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Sandra R. Ethridge ◽  
Angela Post ◽  
Pratap Devkota ◽  
Michael J. Mulvaney ◽  
Ramon G. Leon
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Control Volunteer ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides ◽  
Response Field

Abstract Field experiments were conducted from 2017 to 2019 to determine the tolerance of carinata to several preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Preliminary screenings identified herbicides which caused large variation on carinata injury, indicating the potential for selectivity. Dose-response field studies were conducted to quantify the tolerance of carinata to select herbicides. Diuron applied preemergence at rates of 280 g ai ha−1 or above reduced carinata population density 54% to 84% compared to the nontreated control. In certain locations, clomazone applied preemergence caused minor injury with an acceptable level of carinata tolerance and only doses above 105 g ai ha−1 caused yield reductions. Napropamide doses of 2,856 g ai ha−1 or higher applied preemergence caused at least 25% injury to carinata; however, the damage was not severe enough to reduce yields. Simazine applied postemergence at rates above 1,594 g ai ha−1 caused 50% or more injury, resulting in yield losses ranging from 0 to 95% depending on location. Clopyralid applied postemergence at 2,512 g ai ha−1 caused 25% injury with relative yield reductions which varied across locations. The present study identified clomazone and napropamide applied preemergence, and clopyralid applied postemergence as potential herbicides for weed control in carinata. In contrast, diuron, simazine, metribuzin, imazethapyr, and chlorimuron caused high levels of carinata mortality and can be used to control volunteer carinata plants in rotational crops.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document