scholarly journals Growth stage of Phalaris minor Retz. and wheat determines weed control and crop tolerance of four post-emergence herbicides

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. e1001
Author(s):  
Rubia Rasool ◽  
Makhan S. Bhullar ◽  
Gurjeet S. Gill
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Herbicide Tolerance ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Wheat Grain ◽  
Current Recommendation ◽  
Phalaris Minor ◽  
Crop Tolerance

Phalaris minor Retz. has evolved multiple herbicide resistance in wheat growing areas in northwestern India. An understanding of the effect of growth stage on herbicide tolerance of wheat and control of P. minor will help in selecting the most appropriate herbicide for different situations. The weed control and crop safety of four commonly used wheat herbicides (sulfosulfuron, pinoxaden, fenoxaprop plus metribuzin and mesosulfuron plus iodosulfuron), each applied at four different wheat growth stages was investigated in field studies for two years. P. minor plants were at 1, 2-3, 3-4 and 7-8 leaf stages when the herbicides were applied at Zadok 12-Z12, Z13, Z21 and Z23 stages of wheat, respectively. Sulfosulfuron application at Z12 and Z13 wheat stages (before first irrigation), provided >80% control of P. minor and produced wheat grain yield (4.5-4.7 t/ha) similar to the weed-free check (4.9 t/ha) in both years. Pinoxaden, fenoxaprop plus metribuzin and mesosulfuron plus iodosulfuron application at Z12 and Z13 wheat stages recorded significantly lower wheat grain yield (3.62-3.95 t/ha) due to poor weed control, crop toxicity or both. All the four herbicides were equally effective on P. minor when applied at Z21 wheat stage. At Z23 wheat stage, pinoxaden gave >90% control of P. minor and the highest wheat grain yield (4.82 t/ha). The results are expected to allow changes in the current recommendation of the timing of post-emergence herbicides for the management of P. minor in wheat.

Mustard tolerance to clopyralid applied alone or with ethametsulfuron

1994 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 635-641
Author(s):  
H. A. Loeppky ◽  
R. E. Blackshaw
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Oil Content ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Yellow Mustard ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Drought Tolerant ◽  
Control Limits ◽  
Oriental Mustard

Mustard is a drought-tolerant crop well adapted to the Brown and Dark Brown soils of the Prairies; however, lack of broad-leaved weed control limits production. Two field studies were conducted at Indian Head, Saskatchewan and Lethbridge, Alberta to determine the response of brown and oriental mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Coss), and yellow mustard (B. hirta Moench) to clopyralid. Clopyralid was applied at 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.30, 0.60 kg a.i. ha−1 at the 4- or 10-leaf stage in one experiment. The other was a factorial experiment of clopyralid at 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 kg a.i. ha−1 with ethametsulfuron at 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 kg a.i. ha−1. Clopyralid applied at 0.15 kg a.i. ha−1, the lowest rate at which it is registered for weed control in canola, resulted in brown mustard yield reductions of 21%, oriental mustard yield reductions of 23% and yellow mustard yield reductions of 9% over 5 site years. This rate of clopyralid applied with ethametsulfuron reduced brown, oriental and yellow mustard yield by 30, 33 and 8%, respectively. Oil content was also reduced by clopyralid. Clopyralid cannot be used for weed control in mustards. Key words: Crop tolerance, growth stage, clopyralid, ethametsulfuron, seed yield, oil content

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.

scholarly journals Improvement of Wheat Grain Yield Prediction Model Performance Based on Stacking Technique

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (24) ◽  
pp. 12164
Author(s):  
Changchun Li ◽  
Yilin Wang ◽  
Chunyan Ma ◽  
Weinan Chen ◽  
Yacong Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Model ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Vegetation Indices ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Grain Filling ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Wheat Grain ◽  
Area Index

Crop growth and development is a dynamic and complex process, and the essence of yield formation is the continuous accumulation of photosynthetic products from multiple fertility stages. In this study, a new stacking method for integrating multiple growth stages information was proposed to improve the performance of the winter wheat grain yield (GY) prediction model. For this purpose, crop canopy hyperspectral reflectance and leaf area index (LAI) data were obtained at the jointing, flagging, anthesis and grain filling stages. In this case, 15 vegetation indices and LAI were used as input features of the elastic network to construct GY prediction models for single growth stage. Based on Stacking technique, the GY prediction results of four single growth stages were integrated to construct the ensemble learning framework. The results showed that vegetation indices coupled LAI could effectively overcome the spectral saturation phenomenon, the validated R2 of each growth stage was improved by 10%, 22.5%, 3.6% and 10%, respectively. The stacking method provided more stable information with higher prediction accuracy than the individual fertility results (R2 = 0.74), and the R2 of the model validation phase improved by 236%, 51%, 27.6%, and 12.1%, respectively. The study can provide a reference for GY prediction of other crops.

Interaction of Terbufos and Nicosulfuron on Corn (Zea mays)

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 999-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Kapusta ◽  
Ronald F. Krausz
Keyword(s):  
Zea Mays ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Potential Interaction ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Corn Plant ◽  
Leaf Stage ◽  
Significant Injury ◽  
Ear Number

Field studies were conducted in 1989 and 1990 to determine the potential interaction of terbufos and nicosulfuron on corn. Terbufos applied in-furrow at planting interacted with nicosulfuron applied POST to cause significant injury 25, 30, 40, 50, and 60 d after planting in 1989 and 1990. Injury decreased significantly when nicosulfuron was applied at later growth stages of corn. Plant population was not affected by terbufos and nicosulfuron regardless of the growth stage of corn at application of nicosulfuron in either year. Corn ear number and grain yield in 1989 and 1990 were lower in plots treated with terbufos at planting and nicosulfuron applied at the three leaf stage than in plots treated with only nicosulfuron. There were no differences in the height of corn, ear number, or grain yield when nicosulfuron was applied at the seven-leaf stage regardless of terbufos application in 1989 or 1990.

Weed Management in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn with Glyphosate and Halosulfuron

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1049-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter E. Thomas ◽  
Ian C. Burke ◽  
John W. Wilcut
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Yellow Nutsedge ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Glyphosate Formulation ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Large Crabgrass

Three field studies were conducted at Lewiston Woodville, NC, in 2001 and 2002 to evaluate crop tolerance, weed control, grain yield, and net returns in glyphosate-resistant corn with various herbicide systems. Crop injury, weed control, and grain yield were not influenced by glyphosate formulation. Atrazine preemergence (PRE) and atrazine plus metolachlor PRE, averaged over postemergence (POST) systems, controlled Texas panicum at least 80 and 87%, respectively. Sequential glyphosate applications (early postemergence [EPOST] followed by [fb] POST) provided at least 99% control of Texas panicum compared with at least 86 and 88% control with glyphosate EPOST and glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST, respectively. Atrazine plus metolachlor PRE fb any glyphosate system controlled large crabgrass and goosegrass 89 to 100% and 94 to 100%, respectively. Sequential glyphosate treatments controlled large crabgrass and goosegrass at least 99 and 95%, respectively. Regardless of PRE system, glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST and sequential applications of glyphosate controlled common ragweed and common lambsquarters at least 99%, whereas glyphosate EPOST alone provided at least 88 and 96% control, respectively. Glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST and glyphosate sequentially controlled yellow nutsedge similarly and more consistently than glyphosate EPOST. Regardless of PRE treatment, sequential glyphosate applications provided at least 98% control of entireleaf and pitted morningglory, whereas glyphosate EPOST controlled at least 64 and 62%, respectively. Glyphosate EPOST and the sequential glyphosate EPOST fb POST systems yielded similarly at all three locations. Net returns were highest at all three locations with the glyphosate sequential system, with similar net returns obtained with glyphosate EPOST and glyphosate plus halosulfuron EPOST at two and one locations, respectively.

Evaluation of weed control in acetyl coA carboxylase-resistant rice with mixtures of quizalofop and auxinic herbicides

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-505
Author(s):  
Tameka L. Sanders ◽  
Jason A. Bond ◽  
Benjamin H. Lawrence ◽  
Bobby R. Golden ◽  
Thomas W. Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Rice Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Acetyl Coa Carboxylase ◽  
Acetyl Coa ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Herbicide Mixture ◽  
Sequential Treatments ◽  
And Control

AbstractRice with enhanced tolerance to herbicides that inhibit acetyl coA carboxylase (ACCase) allows POST application of quizalofop, an ACCase-inhibiting herbicide. Two concurrent field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 near Stoneville, MS, to evaluate control of grass (Grass Study) and broadleaf (Broadleaf Study) weeds with sequential applications of quizalofop alone and in mixtures with auxinic herbicides applied in the first or second application. Sequential treatments of quizalofop were applied at 119 g ai ha−1 alone and in mixtures with labeled rates of auxinic herbicides to rice at the two- to three-leaf (EPOST) or four-leaf to one-tiller (LPOST) growth stages. In the Grass Study, no differences in rice injury or control of volunteer rice (‘CL151’ and ‘Rex’) were detected 14 and 28 d after last application (DA-LPOST). Barnyardgrass control at 14 and 28 DA-LPOST with quizalofop applied alone or with auxinic herbicides EPOST was ≥93% for all auxinic herbicide treatments except penoxsulam plus triclopyr. Barnyardgrass control was ≥96% with quizalofop applied alone and with auxinic herbicides LPOST. In the Broadleaf Study, quizalofop plus florpyrauxifen-benzyl controlled more Palmer amaranth 14 DA-LPOST than other mixtures with auxinic herbicides, and control with this treatment was greater EPOST compared with LPOST. Hemp sesbania control 14 DA-LPOST was ≤90% with quizalofop plus quinclorac LPOST, orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac LPOST, and triclopyr EPOST or LPOST. All mixtures except quinclorac and orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac LPOST controlled ivyleaf morningglory ≥91% 14 DA-LPOST. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl or triclopyr were required for volunteer soybean control >63% 14 DA-LPOST. To optimize barnyardgrass control and rice yield, penoxsulam plus triclopyr and orthosulfamuron plus quinclorac should not be mixed with quizalofop. Quizalofop mixtures with auxinic herbicides are safe and effective for controlling barnyardgrass, volunteer rice, and broadleaf weeds in ACCase-resistant rice, and the choice of herbicide mixture could be adjusted based on weed spectrum in the treated field.

Effect of weeds and nitrogen fertiliser on yield and grain protein concentration of wheat

1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 443 ◽  
Author(s):  
MG Mason ◽  
RW Madin
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Protein Concentration ◽  
The Other ◽  
Grain Protein ◽  
Dry Matter Yield ◽  
Wheat Grain ◽  
Grain Protein Concentration ◽  
Nitrogen Fertiliser

Field trials at Beverley (19911, Salmon Gums (1991; 2 sites) and Merredin (1992; 2 sites), each with 5 rates of nitrogen (N) and 3 levels of weed control, were used to investigate the effect of weeds and N on wheat grain yield and protein concentration during 1991 and 1992. Weeds in the study were grasses (G) and broadleaf (BL). Weeds reduced both vegetative dry matter yield and grain yield of wheat at all sites except for dry matter at Merredin (BL). Nitrogen fertiliser increased wheat dry matter yield at all sites. Nitrogen increased wheat grain yield at Beverley and Merredin (BL), but decreased yield at both Salmon Gums sites in 1991. Nitrogen fertiliser increased grain protein concentration at all 5 sites-at all rates for 3 sites [Salmon Gums (G) and (BL) and Merredin (G)] and at rates of 69 kg N/ha or more at the other 2 sites [Beverley and Merredin (BL)]. However, the effect of weeds on grain protein varied across sites. At Merredin (G) protein concentration was higher where there was no weed control, possibly due to competition for soil moisture by the greater weed burden. At Salmon Gums (G), grain protein concentration was greater when weeds were controlled than in the presence of weeds, probably due to competition for N between crop and weeds. In the other 3 trials, there was no effect of weeds on grain protein. The effect of weeds on grain protein appears complex and depends on competition between crop and weeds for N and for water at the end of the season, and the interaction between the two.

Differential Tolerance of Clearfield Rice Cultivars to Imazamox

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Bond ◽  
Timothy W. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Growth Stage ◽  
Rice Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
First Year ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Rice Cultivars ◽  
Rough Rice ◽  
Rice Yields ◽  
Clearfield Rice ◽  
Two Hybrid

Field studies were conducted to compare the response of one inbred (‘CL161’) and two hybrid (‘CLXL729’ and ‘CLXL745’) Clearfield (CL) rice cultivars to imazamox. Imazamox was applied at 44 and 88 g ai ha−1to rice in the panicle initiation (PI) and PI plus 14 d (PI + 14) growth stages and at 44 g ha−1to rice in the midboot growth stage. Maturity of hybrid CL cultivars was delayed following imazamox at 44 g ha−1applied at PI + 14 and midboot. Furthermore, imazamox at 44 g ha−1, applied at midboot, delayed maturity of CLXL745 more than CLXL729. Expressed as a percentage of the weed-free control plots, rough rice yields for CLXL729 were 91% following imazamox at 44 g ha−1applied at PI + 14, 78% following imazamox at 44 g ha−1applied at midboot, and 77% for imazamox at 88 g ha−1applied at PI + 14. Rough rice yield for CLXL745 was 77 to 92% of the control following all imazamox treatments. All imazamox treatments reduced CLXL745 rough rice yield compared with CL161. Rough rice yield, pooled across CL cultivar, varied with imazamox treatment between years, and these differences may have been a consequence of lower temperatures and solar radiation in the first year. Hybrid CL cultivars CLXL729 and CLXL745 were less tolerant than was CL161 when imazamox was applied at nonlabeled rates (88 g ha−1) and/or timings (PI + 14 or midboot). Because of variability in rice growth stages and irregularities in imazamox application in commercial fields, inbred CL cultivars should be planted where an imazamox application will likely be required.

Application Timing for Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays) with Dicamba Tank Mixtures

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 602-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Spandl ◽  
Thomas L. Rabaey ◽  
James J. Kells ◽  
R. Gordon Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Zea Mays ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Common Lambsquarters ◽  
Giant Foxtail ◽  
Corn Grain ◽  
Corn Grain Yield

Optimal application timing for dicamba–acetamide tank mixes was examined in field studies conducted in Michigan and Wisconsin from 1993 to 1995. Dicamba was tank mixed with alachlor, metolachlor, or SAN 582H and applied at planting, 7 d after planting, and 14 d after planting. Additional dicamba plus alachlor tank mixes applied at all three timings were followed by nicosulfuron postemergence to determine the effects of noncontrolled grass weeds on corn yield. Delaying application of dicamba–acetamide tank mixes until 14 d after planting often resulted in lower and less consistent giant foxtail control compared with applications at planting or 7 d after planting. Corn grain yield was reduced at one site where giant foxtail control was lower when application was delayed until 14 d after planting. Common lambsquarters control was excellent with 7 or 14 d after planting applications. At one site, common lambsquarters control and corn yield was reduced by application at planting. Dicamba–alachlor tank mixes applied 7 d after planting provided similar weed control or corn yield, while at planting and 14 d after planting applications provided less consistent weed control or corn yield than a sequential alachlor plus dicamba treatment or an atrazine-based program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document