Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T05:09:27.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Pitted Morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) Accessions to Chlorimuron, Fomesafen, and Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Daniel O. Stephenson IV ,
Lawrence R. Oliver  and
Jason A. Bond
Daniel O. Stephenson IV*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, 115 Plant Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, 115 Plant Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, 115 Plant Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dstephenson@uaex.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Fayetteville, AR, to determine the response of 38 pitted morningglory accessions to fomesafen, chlorimuron, and glyphosate when applied postemergence over-the-top (POT) at 9 g ai/ha, 420 g ai/ha, and 840 g ae/ha, respectively, to four-leaf, 15-cm-tall pitted morningglory. Visual control following chlorimuron application ranged from 82 to 95% 3 wk after treatment (WAT). Visual control of accessions with fomesafen ranged 34 to 84% 3 WAT. Variability in visual control following fomesafen application was documented among accessions collected from similar geographic locations in west-central and southwest Arkansas, central and southeast Louisiana, and west-central Mississippi. Glyphosate controlled pitted morningglory accessions 81 to 89% 3 WAT. Data indicate that weed management programs should be field specific where fomesafen use is intended.

Keywords

Chlorimuronfomesafenglyphosatepitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAEcotypesherbicide susceptibility
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 179 - 185
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

Anonymous, , 2006. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Chemical Use Database. USDA-NASS: Web page: http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/. Accessed: February 23, 2006.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr, and Godley, F. M. 1984. Control of annual morningglories (Ipomoea spp.) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:813–818.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2006. Comparative growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions. Weed Sci. 54:121–126.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A., Oliver, L. R., and Stephenson, D. O. IV. 2006. Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 20:885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J. A., Walker, T. W., Bollich, P. K., Koger, C. H., and Gerard, P. 2005. Seeding rates for stale seedbed rice production in the midsouthern United States. Agron. J. 97:1560–1563.Google Scholar
Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29:263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. M., Chandler, J. M., and Bridges, D. C. 1987. Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) ecotype response to herbicides. Weed Technol. 1:221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and Wills, G. D. 1985. Susceptibility of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) biotypes to several herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:848–852.Google Scholar
Cahoon, J., Ferguson, J., Edwards, D., and Tucker, P. 1990. A microcomputer-based irrigation scheduler for the humid mid-south region. Appl. Eng. Agric. 6:289–295.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences in combined analyses of experiments with two- or three- factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:484–488.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Response of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:531–535.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D., Wiseman, J. B., and McDaniel, S. 1982. Morningglory survey of cotton and soybean fields in the Mississippi Delta: 1981. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:319–328.Google Scholar
Fernald, M. L. 1950. Grays Manual of Botany. 8th (centennial) ed. Illustrated New York American Book Company. 1179–1180.Google Scholar
Frank, J. R. and Tworkoski, T. J. 1994. Response of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) clones to chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 8:565–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, L. F., Chandler, J. M., and Vaughan, C. E. 1978. Aspects of germination, emergence, and seed production of three Ipomoea taxa. Weed Sci. 26:245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Heap, I., DiNicola, N., and Glasgow, L. 2003. Herbicide Resistant Weeds of the USA. Web page: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: September 17, 2003.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci. 36:345–353.Google Scholar
Howe, O. W. III and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory interference. Weed Sci. 35:185–193.Google Scholar
Joseph, O. O., Hobbs, S. L. A., and Jana, S. 1990. Diclofop resistance in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 38:475–479.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.Google Scholar
King, C. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Application rate and timing of acifluorfen, bentazon, chlorimuron, and imazaquin. Weed Technol. 6:526–534.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1996. Existence of ecotypes among populations of entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula). Weed Sci. 44:540–544.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957–962.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8:17–22.Google Scholar
Mathis, W. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Control of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28:409–415.Google Scholar
McClelland, M. R., Oliver, L. R., Mathis, W. D., and Frans, R. E. 1978. Responses of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species to bentazon. Weed Sci. 26:459–464.Google Scholar
Noldin, J. A., Chandler, J. M., Ketchersid, M. L., and McCauley, G. N. 1999. Red rice (Oryza sativa) biology. II. Ecotype sensitivity to herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:19–24.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol. 15:725–731.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Pitted morningglory interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci. 50:26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals in Ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia W. B. Saunders. 574.Google Scholar
Ottis, B. V., O'Barr, J. H., McCauley, G. N., and Chandler, J. M. 2004. Imazethapyr is safe and effective for imidazolinone-tolerant rice grown on coarse-textured soils. Weed Technol. 18:1096–1100.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill The Univ. of North Carolina Press. 684–868.Google Scholar
Riley, D. G. and Shaw, D. R. 1988. Influence of imazapyr on the control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) with chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 36:663–666.Google Scholar
Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazaquin in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula). Weed Sci. 40:503–506.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest. Manag. Sci. 56:320–326.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 16:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Bond, J. A., Walker, E. R., Bararpour, M. T., and Oliver, L. R. 2004. Evaluation of mesotrione in Mississippi delta corn production. Weed Technol. 18:1111–1116.Google Scholar
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Oliver, L. R., Burgos, N. R., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 2006. Identification and characterization of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) ecotypes. Weed Sci. 54:78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002a. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. in Vencill, W.K., Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 223–224.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002b. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. in Vencill, W.K., ed Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 71–72.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002c. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. in Vencill, W.K., ed Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 231–234.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002d. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. in Vencill, W.K., ed Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 457–462.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Weed survey-southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. in. Annual Meeting Abstracts [CD-ROM]. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. and Walker, R. H. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate and 2,4-DB for the control of selected morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species. Weed Technol. 11:152–156.Google Scholar
Wesley, M. T. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Interactions of diphenylether herbicides with chlorimuron and imazaquin. Weed Technol. 6:345–351.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. H., Yerkes, C. N., DeGennaro, F. P., and Weller, S. C. 1997. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in tolerant and susceptible biotypes of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 45:658–663.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects of diphenylether herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:19–24.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Leon, C. T. 2005. Response of rice cultivars to V-10029. Weed Technol. 19:307–311.Google Scholar