Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-4z9h4 Total loading time: 24.579 Render date: 2021-04-13T04:16:34.701Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Control as Affected by Application Timing of Glufosinate Applied Alone or Mixed with Graminicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Amber N. Eytcheson
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the antagonism potential of glufosinate applied sequentially or mixed with graminicides on barnyardgrass control. Applications of glufosinate alone provided variable control throughout the growing season in both field and greenhouse experiments. In the field, barnyardgrass control was not adversely affected by glufosinate- and clethodim-mix applications or sequential applications of glufosinate before or after clethodim. Soybean yield was not affected by application timing or clethodim rate, with yield ranging from 1,748 to 2,733 kg ha−1. In the greenhouse, glufosinate applied 1 and 3 d before graminicides generally reduced barnyardgrass control compared with the graminicides applied alone. The response with quizalofop-P was not as dramatic as with the other graminicides. Although significant visual barnyardgrass control differences were detected due to application timing of glufosinate, barnyardgrass biomass with fluazifop-P and quizalofop-P did not differ between the application timings of glufosinate. However, glufosinate applied 1 and 3 d before clethodim had significantly greater biomass compared with glufosinate applied 1 and 3 d after clethodim. The differences in environmental conditions and growth stages at the time of application may have contributed to barnyardgrass control response differences between the field and greenhouse experiments. Although barnyardgrass control in the field was not affected by glufosinate application timing, data from the greenhouse indicate potential exists for reduced control if glufosinate is applied 1 or 3 d before graminicides.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Anonymous (2010a) Assure® II herbicide specimen label. Wilmington, DE: DuPont. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2010b) Poast® herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 24 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2010c) Select Max® herbicide specimen label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent. 43 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2011a) Fusilade® DX herbicide specimen label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. 36 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2011b) Ignite® 280SL herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience. 20 pGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Burgos, N (2011) Seedbank size and emergence pattern of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Sci 59:35936510.1614/WS-D-10-00149.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, JT, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG (2002) Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:26727310.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0267:WMPIGR]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Askew, SD, Corbett, JL, Wilcut, JW (2005) Glufosinate antagonizes clethodim control of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Technol 19:66466810.1614/WT-04-214R1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkern, CB, Reynolds, DB, Vidrine, PR, Griffin, JL, Jordan, DL (1998) Bromoxynil antagonizes johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with graminicides. Weed Technol 12:20520810.1017/S0890037X00043694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of herbicide programs on weed management in soybean with resistance to glufosinate and 2, 4-D. Weed Technol 27:788410.1614/WT-D-12-00099.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1999) Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 13:32433310.1017/S0890037X00041816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Batts, RB, Jennings, KM (2000) Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:778810.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0077:WMIGAG]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, MD, Duke, SO, Fedtke, C (1993) Physiology of the Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall. P 441Google Scholar
Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Massey, JH, Smith, MC, Koger, CH (2007) Effect of adjuvant and urea ammonium nitrate on bispyribac efficacy, absorption and translocation in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Technol 55:406411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2008) Mini-review glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:31932510.1002/ps.1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Hendricks, C, Mishra, A (2005) Technology adoption and off-farm household income: the case of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Agric Appl Econ 37:549563Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Wechsler, S, Livingston, M, Mitchell, L (2014) Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service ERR-162. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Gardner, AP, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Monks, DW (2006) Glufosinate antagonizes postemergence graminicides applied to annual grasses and johnsongrass. J Cotton Sci 10:319327Google Scholar
Gianessi, LP (2005) Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 61:241245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, JM (1989) Herbicide antagonism at the whole plant level. Weed Technol 3:21722610.1017/S0890037X00031717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JM, Owen, MDK (2011) Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agric Food Chem 56:58195829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irby, JT, Reynolds, DB, Huff, JA, Dodds, DM (2007) Weed control programs in Liberty Link cotton. Page 1825 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Cordova, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Johnson, DB, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC (2014) Herbicide programs for controlling glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 28:1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, JS, Won, TJ, Lee, BH, Yu, JH, Lee, CW (2005) Physiological basis for antagonism induced by mixtures of quizalofop-ethyl and bromoxynil in maze (Zea mays). Weed Res 46:236242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, CH, Burke, IC, Miller, DK, Kendig, JA, Reddy, KN, Wilcut, JW (2007) MSMA antagonizes glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy on broadleaf and grass weed. Weed Technol 21:159165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maun, MA, Barrett, SCH (1986) The biology of Canadian weeds, 77, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Can J Plant Sci 66:739759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitch, LW (1990) Barnyardgrass. Weed Technol 4:918920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potvin, C (1986) Biomass allocation and phenological differences among southern and northern populations of the C4 grass Echinochloa crus-galli. J Ecol 74:915923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riar, D, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO IV, Eubank, TW, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013a) Adoption of best management practices for herbicide-resistant weed in Midsouthern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technol 27:788797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riar, D, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO IV, Eubank, TW, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013b) Assessment of weed management practices and problems in the Midsouth United States-soybean: a consultant’s perspective. Weed Technol 27:612622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Li, J (2004) Glutamine synthetase activity and ammonium accumulation is influenced by time of glufosinate application. Pest Biochem Physiol 78:920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senseman, SA, ed (2007) Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 458 pGoogle Scholar
Shurley, WD, Smith, AR, Culpepper, AS, Roberts, PM (2010) A budget analysis of glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth control and seed technology choices in Georgia cotton. Page 467 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Cordova, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Steckel, GJ, Wax, LM, Simmons, FW, Phillips, WH II (1997) Glufosinate efficacy on annual weed is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol 11:48448810.1017/S0890037X00045292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Scroggs, DM (2009) Effect of various glufosinate application rates and timings of weed control in cotton. Page 1360 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Cordova, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Tasrif, A, Juraimi, AS, Kadir, J (2004) Morphological variation of the ecoytpes of Echinochloa crus-galli var crus-galli (L.) Beauv (barnyardgrass: poaceae) in Malaysia and Indonesia. Biotropia 22:114Google Scholar
Vail, GD, Oliver, LR (1993) Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 7:220225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2016 Survey of the Most Common and Troublesome Weeds in Broadleaf Crops, Fruits, & Vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wpcontent/uploads/2016_Weed_Survey_Final.xlsx. Accessed: November 25, 2016Google Scholar
Vidrine, PR (1989) Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 3:455458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, PR, Reynolds, DB, Blouin, DC (1995) Grass control in soybean (Glycine max) with graminicides applied alone and in mixtures. Weed Technol 9:6872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. Weed Technol 25:183191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J, Hamill, AS, Weaver, SE (1995) Antagonism and synergism between herbicides: trend from previous studies. Weed Technol 9:8690CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 81 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th January 2019 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Control as Affected by Application Timing of Glufosinate Applied Alone or Mixed with Graminicides
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Control as Affected by Application Timing of Glufosinate Applied Alone or Mixed with Graminicides
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Control as Affected by Application Timing of Glufosinate Applied Alone or Mixed with Graminicides
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *