Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T22:09:01.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postharvest Control of Russian Thistle (Salsola tragus) with a Reduced Herbicide Applicator in The Pacific Northwest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frank L. Young ,
Joseph P. Yenish ,
Glenn K. Launchbaugh ,
Larry L. McGrew  and
J. Richard Alldredge
Frank L. Young*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646420, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Joseph P. Yenish
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646420, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Glenn K. Launchbaugh
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646420, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Larry L. McGrew
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, P.O. Box 646420, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
J. Richard Alldredge
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Washington State University, P.O. Box 643144, Pullman, WA 99164-3144
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: youngfl@wsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Russian thistle is a severe problem in fields after crop harvest in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and is controlled either by tillage or broadcast applications of various herbicides. A study was conducted in Washington in 2000 and 2001 at four sites to compare the efficacy of two herbicide treatments applied with a light-activated, sensor-controlled (LASC) sprayer and a conventional broadcast sprayer for postharvest Russian thistle control. Additionally, simple economic comparisons, excluding fixed costs, were made among herbicide treatments and application methods. Both herbicide applicators controlled Russian thistle similarly within each herbicide treatment. Weed control was unacceptable (≤ 75%) when glyphosate plus 2,4-D was applied with either applicator. In contrast, Russian thistle control was > 90% with paraquat plus diuron regardless of applicator. The overall reduction in chemical use was 42% with the LASC compared with the broadcast applicator when averaged over the four sites. Herbicide and surfactant cost savings, using 2007 prices for the LASC compared with the broadcast applicator, ranged from $6.68/ha to $18.21/ha with the paraquat plus diuron treatment and averaged $13.27/ha less for the four sites. The use of the LASC for postharvest Russian thistle control can reduce growers' input costs, increase growers' profits, and improve environmental quality by reducing the amount and area of a restricted-use chemical.

Keywords

Glyphosate2,4-DparaquatdiuronRussian thistle, Salsola tragus L.Chemical fallow
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 156 - 159
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

Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Relative costs of a weed-activated versus conventional sprayer in Northern Great Plains fallow. Weed Technol. 8:50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol. 12:531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effect on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8:231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., and Lindwall, C. W. 1998. Merits of a weed-sensing sprayer to control weeds in conservation fallow and cropping systems. Weed Sci. 46:120–126.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical nonparametric statistics. 2nd ed. New York J. Wiley. 493.Google Scholar
Dean, A. and Voss, D. 1999. Design and analysis of experiments. New York Springer-Verlag. 740.Google Scholar
Forte-Gardner, O., Young, F. L., Dillman, D. A., and Carroll, M. S. 2004. Increasing the effectiveness of technology transfer for conservation cropping systems through research and field design. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19:199–209.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37. in Camper, N. D., editor. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. and Beck, J. L. 1998. Sensor-controlled hooded sprayer for row crops. Weed Technol. 12:308–314.Google Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS/Stat User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 3884.Google Scholar
Schillinger, W. F. and Young, F. L. 2000. Soil water use and growth of Russian thistle after wheat harvest. Agron. J. 92:167–172.Google Scholar
Stallings, G. P., Thill, D. C., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 1994. Sulfonylurea-resistant Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) survey in Washington state. Weed Technol. 8:258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L. 1986. Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) growth and development in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 34:901–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L. 1988. Effect of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) interference on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 36:594–598.Google Scholar
Young, F. L. 2006. Russian thistle (Salsola spp.) biology and management. Pages 145–147. in. Managing Weeds in a Changing Climate: Papers and Proceedings of 15th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, Australia Weed Management Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
Young, F. L. and Thorne, M. E. 2004. Weed-species dynamics and management in no-till and reduced-till fallow cropping systems for the semi-arid agricultural region of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Crop Prot. 23:1097–1110.Google Scholar
Young, F. L., Veseth, R., Thill, D., Schillinger, W., and Ball, D. 1995. Managing Russian thistle under conservation tillage in crop-fallow rotations. Moscow, ID University of Idaho, Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW-492. 12.Google Scholar
Young, F. L. and Whitesides, R. E. 1987. Efficacy of postharvest herbicides on Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) control and seed germination. Weed Sci. 35:554–559.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. 1991. Tumbleweed. Sci. Am. (March issue) 82–87.Google Scholar
Zaikin, A. A., Young, D. L., and Schillinger, W. F. 2007. Economic comparison of undercutter and traditional tillage systems for winter wheat-summer fallow farming. Pullman, WA Washington State University, Washington State University Extension Publication EB2022E. 25.Google Scholar