Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:34:21.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Control of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Allen F. Wiese
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., USDA Conserv. and Prod. Res. Lab., Drawer 10, Bushland, TX 79012
Dwane E. Lavake
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., USDA Conserv. and Prod. Res. Lab., Drawer 10, Bushland, TX 79012

Abstract

Over 20 experiments comparing glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine], dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid), fosamine [ethyl hydrogen (aminocarbonyl)phosphonate], and 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid] for control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L. # CONAR) were conducted from 1976 to 1982 at various times of the year and different stages of weed growth. In three of the studies, 1.7, 3.4, and 5.0 kg ae/ha of glyphosate gave 54, 72, and 80% control, respectively, 1 yr after application. Control with glyphosate at 3.4, 2,4-D at 1.1, dicamba at 1.1, and fosamine at 13.7 kg ae/ha in the 20 studies was 71, 55, 57, and 73%, respectively, 1 yr after application. Glyphosate, 2,4-D, and fosamine gave good control at any time of the year if weed growth was lush. Dicamba gave good control anytime if growth was good and in the fall regardless of growing conditions. Control with mixtures of dicamba and picloram, picloram and 2,4-D, or glyphosate and picloram was higher than with the other herbicides. Dicamba at 1.1 kg/ha, applied after August caused some injury to wheat planted the same fall. Herbicide combinations with picloram at 0.28 kg/ha applied after June injured wheat planted in the fall.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32:472476.Google Scholar
2. Derscheid, L. A. 1947. Results of uniform experiments with 2,4-D on bindweed. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 4:176177.Google Scholar
3. Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18:590596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hamner, C. L. and Tukey, H. B. 1944. The herbicidal action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid on bindweed. Science 100:154155.Google Scholar
5. Phillips, W. M. 1961. Control of field bindweed by cultural and chemical methods. Tech. Bull. 1249. U.S. Dep. Agric. 30 pp.Google Scholar
6. Russ, O. G. and Anderson, L. E. 1960. Field bindweed control by combinations of cropping, cultivation, and 2,4-D. Weeds 8:397401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Schweizer, E. E. and Swink, J. F. 1971. Field bindweed control with dicamba and 2,4-D, and crop response to chemical residues. Weed Sci. 19:717721.Google Scholar
8. Schweizer, E. E., Swink, J. F., and Heikes, P. E. 1978. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control in corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with dicamba and 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 26:665668.Google Scholar
9. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1962. Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10:5861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1959. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D and competitive crops. Agron. J. 51:672675.Google Scholar
11. Whitworth, J. W. and Muzik, T. J. 1967. Differential response of selected clones of field bindweed. Weeds 15:275280.Google Scholar
12. Woestemeyer, V. W. 1950. Summary field bindweed investigations. Res. Rpt. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 7:27.Google Scholar