Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:47:28.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Red Morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) Control with 2,4-D and Alternative Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jonathan D. Siebert ,
James L. Griffin  and
Curtis A. Jones
Jonathan D. Siebert
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Curtis A. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate red morningglory control with 2,4-D alone and in combination with dicamba, along with other postemergence herbicides applied both over the top and as directed treatments. For red morningglory 30 and 60 cm in height, complete control 14 or 21 d after treatment (DAT) was obtained during 2 yr with 2,4-D at 0.53 kg ai/ha, 2,4-D at 0.4 kg/ ha or more plus dicamba, atrazine at 2.23 kg ai/ha, flumioxazin at 0.10 kg ai/ha, and sulfentrazone at 0.35 kg ai/ha. When red morningglory were 1.8 m, weed control with most herbicides was less consistent than when applied to smaller plants. Red morningglory (1.8 m) was controlled 100% 28 DAT the first year with 2,4-D at 1.06 kg/ha and 78% the second year. In the first year, the 2,4-D plus dicamba prepackaged mixture at 0.8 + 0.28 kg ai/ha or 2,4-D plus the 2,4-D/dicamba prepackaged mixture (0.53 + 0.2/0.07, 0.53 + 0.4/0.14, or 0.79 + 0.1/0.04 kg/ha) provided control equal to that by 2,4-D alone at 1.06 kg/ha. In the second year, when herbicides were applied 3 wk earlier than the previous year and when weed growth was more vigorous, the 2,4-D plus the 2,4-D/dicamba prepackaged mixture at 0.79 + 0.1/0.04 kg/ha provided control equal to that by 2,4-D alone at 1.06 kg/ha but was the only 2,4-D plus dicamba treatment to control red morningglory equal to that by 2,4-D at 1.59 kg/ha (87%). Directed applications to the lower 45 cm of 1.8-m red morningglory plants with atrazine at 4.47 kg/ha and sulfentrazone at 0.35 kg/ha controlled weeds at least 96% 28 DAT in 2001, but control was 23 and 30 percentage points less, respectively, the second year.

Keywords

Atrazine2,4-Ddicambaflumioxazinsulfentrazonered morningglory, Ipomoea coccinea L. #3 IPOCCSaccharum interspecific hybrids, sugarcaneDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergencePOST-DIR, postemergence directedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 38 - 44
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. 2001a. Louisiana Agricultural Summary. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University AgCenter and Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. Pub. 2314. Pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University AgCenter and Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. Pub. 1565.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Hook, B. J., Peregoy, R. S., and Kitchen, L. M. 1990. Emergence and yield of 2,4-D treated seed cane. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 10. 56–60.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Viator, B. J., and Ellis, J. M. 2000. Tie-vine (morningglory) control at layby. Sugar Bull 78:23–35.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1988. Control of morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) in sugarcane with layby herbicide treatments. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 8. 62–66.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, R. L., Sanders, D., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., Vidrine, P. R., Burch, T. A., Boudreaux, J. E., Puls, E. E., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1996. Potential economic impact of loss of the triazine herbicides in Louisiana. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Rep. OPP-30000-60. 9 p.Google Scholar
Siebert, J. S., Griffin, J. L., Jones, C. A., and Gravois, K. A. 2002. Sugarcane seed response to 2,4-D. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:211.Google Scholar
Thakar, C. and Singh, H. N. 1954. Nilkalamine (Ipomoea hederacea), a menace to sugarcane. Hortic. Abstr 24:530.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002a. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied at layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Weed Technol. 16:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 2002b. Evaluation of red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) for potential atrazine resistance. Weed Technol. 16:96–101.Google Scholar