Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:49:10.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Application of Fluazifop-P, Haloxyfop, and Quizalofop by Sprinkler Irrigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles B. Guy
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
James A. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
David H. Johnson
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Marilyn R. McClelland
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703

Abstract

In field studies, sprinkler irrigation application of the butyl ester of fluazifop-P, the methyl ester of haloxyfop, and the ethyl ester of quizalofop controlled large crabgrass as well as conventional spray applications. In greenhouse investigations, root uptake of the herbicides from sprinkler irrigation applications injured large crabgrass more than root uptake from conventional applications, but large crabgrass injury from shoot uptake was equal with sprinkler irrigation and conventional applications. Droplets with dilute concentrations of herbicide and crop oil, simulating sprinkler irrigation, were more active when applied to the whorl or second leaf than to the first leaf of large crabgrass. An increase in concentration of nonemulsified oil in the treatment solution increased herbicide deposition and retention.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221224.Google Scholar
2. Andersen, R. N. 1982. Comparisons of four herbicides applied postemergence for grass control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 37:8082.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:574583.Google Scholar
4. Dowler, C. C. 1982. New technology in herbigation. Proc. 2nd Nat. Symp. on Chemigation. Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA. Pages 2830.Google Scholar
5. Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burwood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans. Crop Sci. 11:929931.Google Scholar
6. Hartzler, R. G. and Foy, C. L. 1983. Efficacy of three postemergence grass herbicides for soybeans. Weed Sci. 31:557561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Johnston, G. B. and Webb, F. J. 1983. Spray pressure, volume, and tip study. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci., Soc. 37:5152.Google Scholar
8. Raun, E. S. 1981. Five years of insectigation on the great plains. Proc. Nat. Symp. on Chemigation. Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA. Pages 5255.Google Scholar
9. Threadgill, D. 1981. Why chemigate? Proc. Nat. Symp. on Chemigation. Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA. Pages 16.Google Scholar
10. Young, J. R. 1981. Chemigation: insecticides applied in irrigation water for control of the corn earworm and fall armyworm in sweet and field corn. Proc. Nat. Symp. on Chemigation. Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA. Pages 5664.Google Scholar