Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:56:04.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Postharvest Herbicides on Russian Thistle (Salsola iberica) Control and Seed Germination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Frank L. Young  and
Ralph E. Whitesides
Frank L. Young
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv.
Ralph E. Whitesides
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of several herbicides applied after small-grain harvest on Russian thistle (Salsola iberica Sennen and Pau # SASKR) control and subsequent seed germination. Best postharvest control of Russian thistle was with chlorsulfuron {2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide} treatments, paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion), and bromoxynil (3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile) plus metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one], where control ranged from 73 to 96%. During the summer-fallow year, chlorsulfuron and paraquat decreased Russian thistle population and biomass compared to the untreated control. Germination of large seeds from plants treated with paraquat and both rates of chlorsulfuron was reduced at least 64% compared to seeds of similar size from untreated plants.

Keywords

Conservation tillagedicambaglyphosatechlorsulfuronparaquat2,4-D aminebromoxynilmetribuzinSASKR
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 1987 , pp. 554 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the 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

1. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Bipyridyliums. Pages 164–179 in Mode of Action of Herbicides. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Biniak, B. M. and Aldrich, R. J. 1986. Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 34:256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Fawcett, R. S. and Slife, F. W. 1978. Effects of 2,4-D and dalapon on weed seed production and dormancy. Weed Sci. 26:543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Maun, M. A. and Cavers, P. B. 1969. Effects of 2,4-D on seed production and embryo development of curly dock. Weed Sci. 17:533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Papendick, R. I. and Miller, D. E. 1977. Conservation tillage in the Pacific Northwest. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 32:49–56.Google Scholar
6. Ray, T. B. 1982. The mode of action of chlorsulfuron: A new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron. Plant Physiol. 75:827–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Rojas-Garciduenas, M. and Kommedahl, T. 1960. The effect of 2,4-D on germination of pigweed seed. Weeds 8:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Wallace, A., Rhods, W. A., and Frolich, E. F. 1968. Germination behavior of Salsola as influenced by temperature, moisture, depth of planting, and gamma irradiation. Agron. J. 60:76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Young, F. L. 1986. Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) growth and development in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci.: 34:901–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Young, F. L. and Gealy, D. R. 1986. Control of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) with chlorsulfuron in a wheat (Triticum aestivum) summer-fallow rotation. Weed Sci. 34:318–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1972. Germination and establishment of Salsola in relation to seedbed environment. I. Temperature, afterripening, and moisture relations of Salsola seeds as determined by laboratory studies. Agron. J. 64:214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar