Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T20:02:51.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Split Applications of Herbicides at Reduced Rates Can Effectively Control Wild Oat (Avena fatua) in Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sam J. Lockhart  and
Kirk A. Howatt
Sam J. Lockhart
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Kirk A. Howatt*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kirk.howatt@ndsu.nodak.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Split application of herbicides for wild oat control may minimize wild oat competition with wheat while reducing the number of wild oat seeds returned to the soil. Field experiments were conducted in 2000 and 2001 to evaluate the effects of CGA-184927, fenoxaprop-P, flucarbazone, and ICIA 0604 at labeled and reduced rates on wild oat control, wild oat seed rain, and wheat yield. Each herbicide was applied once at 25, 33, and 100% of the labeled rate at the two-leaf stage of wild oat or split applied at 50 and 66% of the full rate as two equal applications. Excellent full-season wild oat control was obtained with CGA-184927, flucarbazone, and ICIA 0604 applied twice at reduced rates. ICIA 0604 or CGA-184927 split applied at 25 and 33% rates (totaled 50 and 66% of the full rate) provided wild oat control equal to one application of labeled rates. Wild oat seed rain was similar among all herbicide treatments, except plots treated with fenoxaprop-P once at 25 and 33% rates where seed rain was higher and equal to 47% of untreated plots. Wheat yields and net returns were highest and similar after treatment with CGA-184927 or ICIA 0604 applied either once at the labeled rate or split applied at 25 or 33% rates.

Keywords

Fenoxaprop-PICIA 0604 (proposed name, tralkoxydim), 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)cyclohex-2-enoneCGA-184927 (proposed name, clodinafop-propargyl), propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy]-2-propynyl esterflucarbazonewild oat, Avena fatua L. # AVEFAhard red spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Hard red spring wheatreduced herbicide ratesDAT, days after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 369 - 374
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

Barton, D. L., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Integrated wild oat (Avena fatua) management affects spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) yield and economics. Weed Technol. 6:129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, F. A., Kirkland, K. J., and Stevenson, F. C. 2000. Defining optimum herbicide rates and timing for wild oat control (Avena fatua) in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 14:167–175.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Herberger, J. P., Pancho, J. V., and Plucknett, D. L. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth and yield as influenced by duration of wild oat (Avena fatua) competition. Weed Technol. 7:890–893.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J., Johnson, E. N., and Stevenson, F. C. 2001. Control of wild oat (Avena fatua) in wheat with MKH 6562. Weed Technol. 15:48–55.Google Scholar
Medd, R. W. 1994. Methodology for estimation of wild oat seed production and the seed bank. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 34:637–639.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. 1977. Wild oats: global doom. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 30:21–32.Google Scholar
North Dakota Agricultural Statistics. 2001. No. 70. United States Department of Agricultural–North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. Fargo, ND: USDA–North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. Pp. 111–114.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2002. Low-rate split-applied herbicide treatments for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in wheat (Triticm aestivum). Weed Technol. 16:149–155.Google Scholar
Spandl, E., Durgan, B. R., and Miller, D. W. 1997. Wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:591–597.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Holm, F. A., and Kirkland, K. J. 2000. Optimizing wild oat (Avena fatua) with ICIA 0604. Weed Technol. 14:608–616.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Harris, J. D., and Maxwell, B. D. 1997. Influence of application timing on the efficacy of reduced rate postemergence herbicides for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Technol. 11:283–289.Google Scholar
Wille, M. J., Thill, D. C., and Price, W. J. 1998. Wild oat (Avena fatua) seed production in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) is affected by the interaction of wild oat density and herbicide rate. Weed Sci. 46:336–343.Google Scholar