Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T22:38:44.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis) Early-Season Control with Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradley E. Fronning  and
George O. Kegode
Bradley E. Fronning
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
George O. Kegode*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: george.kegode@ndsu.nodak.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biennial wormwood has become a problem for soybean producers in the northern Great Plains of the United States. Research was conducted to evaluate control of biennial wormwood with preemergence (PRE) herbicides alone or followed by postemergence (POST) herbicides in 2000 and 2001 at Fargo, Leonard, and Wyndmere, ND. Favorable soil moisture conditions at Leonard resulted in continual emergence and greater densities of biennial wormwood, whereas the soil at Fargo and Wyndmere was dry and few biennial wormwood seedlings emerged at these locations. Biennial wormwood control with PRE herbicides was greater than 89% at Fargo and Wyndmere but was 80% or lower at Leonard. PRE biennial wormwood control was higher with flumetsulam than with sulfentrazone. When POST treatments were applied after PRE herbicides, biennial wormwood control 4 wk after treatment was 92% or better at Fargo and Wyndmere but was 76% or less at Leonard. The combination of PRE and POST herbicide treatments did not improve control greatly at Fargo or Wyndmere but at Leonard reduced the number of biennial wormwood plants.

Keywords

Flumetsulamsulfentrazonebiennial wormwood, Artemisia biennis Willd. # ARTBIsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrPostemergencepreemergenceweed controlweed densityPOST, postemergencePPO, photoporphyrinogen oxidasePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 611 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bryson, C. T. and Croom, E. M. Jr. 1991. Herbicide inputs for a new agronomic crop, annual wormwood (Artemisia annua). Weed Technol. 5:117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Nalewaja, J. D., Rasmusson, D. D., and Buchli, J. 1981. Survey of Wild Oats and Other Weeds in North Dakota, 1978 and 1979. North Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Rep. 79.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lyndon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr., and Matsumota, H. 1991. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 45:733–738.Google Scholar
Gut, D. and Weber, E. 1999. New problem plants and weeds in Switzerland. Agrarforschung 6:10401–10403.Google Scholar
Hall, H. M. and Clements, F. E. 1923. The Phylogenetic Method in Taxonomy. The North American Species of Artemisia, Chrysothanamus, and Atriplex . Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Pp. 101–102.Google Scholar
Hanway, J. J. and Thompson, H. E. 1967. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Special Rep. 53. Iowa State University, of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service. 17 p.Google Scholar
Jehlík, V. 1984. Artemisia biennis in Czechoslovakia. Preslia Praha: Academia 56:319–328.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. C., Copeland, P. J., Crookston, R. K., and Pfleger, F. L. 1992. Mycorrhizae: possible explanation for yield decline with continuous corn and soybean. Agron. J 84:387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegode, G. O. 2000. Biennial wormwood (Artemisia biennis): an emerging weed problem in the northern Great Plains. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 40:18.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O. and Christoffers, M. J. 2003. Intriguing world of weeds: biennial wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd). Weed Technol. 17:646–649.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O. and Ciernia, M. G. 1999. Control of Biennial Wormwood in Soybean. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Weed Control Research, North Dakota State University. Pp. 30–32.Google Scholar
Lehmann, R. G., Miller, J. R., Fontaine, D. D., Laskowski, D. A., Hunter, J. H., and Cordes, R. C. 1992. Degradation of a sulfonamide herbicide as a function of soil sorption. Weed Res 32:197–205.Google Scholar
Mahoney, K. J. 2001. Biology of Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.). M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 63 p.Google Scholar
Munz, P. A. and Keck, D. D. 1968. A California Flora. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1681 p.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. A. 2001. Interference of Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) with Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 53 p.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. A. and Kegode, G. O. 2000. Interference of biennial wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. Abstr. West. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 53:74.Google Scholar
North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Soybeans. in North Dakota Agricultural Statistics 2001. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, North Dakota Department of Agriculture, and USDA. Pp. 71–73, 114.Google Scholar
Oklejewicz, K. 1999. A locality for Artemisia biennis (Asteraceae) in Rzeszow (south-eastern Poland). Fragm. Florist. Geobot. Ser. Pol 6:297.Google Scholar
Ominski, P. D., Entz, M. H., and Kenkel, N. 1999. Weed suppression by Medicago sativa in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey. Weed Sci. 47:282–290.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. R. 1984. Artemisia biennis by the Thames. B.S.B.I. News 37:26–27.Google Scholar
Payne, R. M. 1987. Aliens and adventives: Artemisia biennis Willd. B.S.B.I. News 45:25.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. A. and Varvel, G. E. 1989. Crop yield as affected by rotation and nitrogen rate. I. Soybean. Agron. J 81:727–731.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Locke, M. A. 1998. Sulfentrazone sorption, desorption, and mineralization in soils from two tillage systems. Weed Sci. 46:494–500.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1243 p.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Murphy, G. P. 1997. Field persistence of bioavailable flumetsulam. Weed Sci. 45:568–572.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Storrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 469–476.Google Scholar
Stevens, O. A. 1932. The number and weight of seeds produced by weeds. Am. J. Bot 19:784–794.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. H. 1961. Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 434 p.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 196–197, 405–406.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K., Ries, J. L., and Hammond, J. J. 2003. Survey of Weeds in North Dakota—2000. North Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Rep. ER-83.Google Scholar