Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T02:17:48.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) control and winter wheat injury with picloram applied in fallow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

Drew J. Lyon*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
Mark E. Thorne
Affiliation:
Associate in Research, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Drew J. Lyon; Email: drew.lyon@wsu.edu

Abstract

Rush skeletonweed is an invasive weed in the winter wheat–fallow production regions of the inland Pacific Northwest. The objectives of this study were to determine the dose response of rush skeletonweed to picloram applied in the fall or spring of the fallow year with either a broadcast or weed-sensing sprayer, and to evaluate injury and grain yield in the subsequent winter wheat crop from these fallow treatments. Field studies were conducted between 2019 and 2022. Fall treatments were applied at one site in 2019, and one site in 2020. Spring treatments were applied at two sites in 2021. Four picloram herbicide rates (0, 140, 280, and 560 g ae ha−1), were applied with either a weed-sensing precision applicator or with a standard broadcast spray applicator. Rush skeletonweed densities in the wheat crop following fall-applied treatments declined with increasing picloram rates at both sites. Treatments applied with the weed-sensing sprayer achieved similar efficacy to broadcast treatments with an average of 37% and 26% of the broadcast rate applied. Spring-applied broadcast treatments resulted in reduced rush skeletonweed densities in wheat with increasing picloram rates. Picloram rate had no apparent effect on rush skeletonweed density when applied in the spring with a weed-sensing sprayer; however, the weed-sensing sprayer applied just 16% and 9% of the broadcast rate. Winter wheat grain yields were not reduced by fall picloram applications. Grain yields were not reduced by spring applications of picloram with the weed-sensing sprayer; however, grain yields were reduced by spring broadcast applications of picloram at both locations, and grain yields declined as the picloram rate increased. Applying picloram in the fall of the fallow phase with a weed-sensing sprayer provides effective and economical control of rush skeletonweed with a low risk for crop injury and yield loss in the following winter wheat crop.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Fischer, JW, Thorne, ME, Lyon, DJ (2020) Weed-sensing technology modifies fallow control of rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea ) Weed Technol 34:857862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, GA (1986) Integrated control of rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) in the western U.S. Weed Sci 34(Suppl 1):26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leys, AR, Amor, RL, Barnett, AG, Plater, B (1990) Evaluation of herbicides for control of summer-growing weeds on fallows in south-eastern Australia. Aust J Exp Agr 30:271279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVean, DN (1966) Ecology of Chondrilla juncea L. in south-eastern Australia. J Ecol 54:345365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NOAA-NCEI] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Centers for Environmental Information (2023) Climate Data Online. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. Accessed: March 30, 2023.Google Scholar
Pareja-Sánchez, E, Plaza-Bonilla, D, Concepción Ramos, M, Lampurlanés, J, Cantero-Martinez, Álvaro-Fuentes J (2017) Long-term no-till as a means to maintain soil surface structure in an agroecosystem transformed into irrigation. Soil Tillage Res 174:221230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, RN, Schirman, R, Robocker, WC (1968) Root development of rush skeletonweed. Weed Sci 16:213217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2019) SAS OnlineDoc. Version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Schillinger, WF, Papendick, RI (2008) Then and now: 125 years of dryland wheat farming in the inland Pacific Northwest. Agron J 100:S166S182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schirman, R, Robocker, WC (1967) Rush skeletonweed: threat to dryland agriculture. Weeds 15:310312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. Tenth ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Stroup, WW (2013) Generalized Linear Mixed Models: Modern Concepts, Methods and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 529 pGoogle Scholar
Thorne, ME, Lyon, DJ (2021) Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) control in fallow. Weed Technol 35:10451051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanden Born, WH (1969) Picloram residues and crop production. Can J Plant Sci 49:628629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vleet, SM, Coombs, EM (2012) Rush skeletonweed, Chondrilla juncea L. Pullman: Washington State University, Pacific Northwest Extension Publication 465, 8 pGoogle Scholar
Walter, H, Lieth, H (1967) Klimadiagramm-Weltatlas. Stuttgart: VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag. 257 pGoogle Scholar