Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:02:58.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Bindweed Control with Dicamba and 2,4-D, and Crop Response to Chemical Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer  and
J. F. Swink
E. E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., in cooperation with the Bot. and Plant Pathol. Dep., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
J. F. Swink
Affiliation:
Arkansas Valley Branch Exp. Sta. of Colorado State Univ., Rocky Ford, Colorado 81067
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under furrow irrigation, control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) was at least 90% where 4.5 and 6.7 kg/ha of 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid (dicamba) had been applied 1 year before. Dicamba at 2.2 kg/ha, mixtures of dicamba and (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D), and 2,4-D alone were less effective. No herbicide treatment had eradicated field bindweed after 3 years, but the combined use of herbicides, tillage, and crop competition had suppressed the growth of field bindweed by 31 to 55%. Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) seedlings appeared normal where 2,4-D had been applied 8 months earlier, but over 90% of the seedlings were killed in plots treated with dicamba. Treatment with 2.2 kg/ha of 2,4-D and dicamba, singly or in combination, resulted in yields of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) significantly greater than yields from the untreated field bindweed check. The 4.5 and 6.7-kg/ha rates of dicamba still affected sugarbeets during the second year following treatment. Corn (Zea mays L.) production was not affected in the third year by any herbicide treatment. Dicamba, applied at 2.2, 4.5, and 6.7 kg/ha, persisted in the upper 15 cm of top soil for at least 12 months in amounts that were phytotoxic to field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and sugarbeets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , November 1971 , pp. 717 - 721
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

1. Alley, H. P. and Chamberlain, E. W. 1964. Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.). Res. Prog. Rep. West. Weed Contr. Conf. p. 10.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. and Lavy, T. L. 1966. Dissipation of dicamba. Weeds 14:211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Corbin, F. T. and Upchurch, R. P. 1967. Influence of pH on detoxication of herbicides in soil. Weeds 15:370–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18:590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Freed, V. H. and Pendleton, R. A. 1950. Weed control studies on sugarbeets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. 6:459–462.Google Scholar
6. Friesen, H. A. 1965. The movement and persistence of dicamba in soil. Weeds 13:30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hahn, R. R., Burnside, O. C., and Lavy, T. L. 1969. Dissipation and phytotoxicity of dicamba. Weed Sci. 17:3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Holkesvig, O. A. 1950. Effects of 2,4-D on sugar beets. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. 6:456–458.Google Scholar
9. Lange, A., Fischer, B., Humphrey, W., Seyman, W., and Baghott, K. 1968. Herbicide residues in California agricultural soils. California Agr. 22(8):2–4.Google Scholar
10. Mitich, L. 1964. Control of field bindweed with old and new herbicides. Res. Prog. Rep. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 21:9–10.Google Scholar
11. Nelson, J. M. 1969. Effect of row width, plant spacing, nitrogen rate and time of harvest on yield and sucrose content of sugarbeets. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 15:509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Parker, C. and Hodgson, G. L. 1966. Some studies on the fate of picloram and dicamba in soils underlying bracken. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 8:614–615.Google Scholar
13. Phillips, W. M. 1961. Control of field bindweed by cultural and chemical methods. U. S. Dep. Agr. Tech. Bull. 1249. 30 p.Google Scholar
14. Ririe, D., Mikkelsen, D. S., and Baskett, R. S. 1952. The effects of maleic hydrazide and 2,4-D on sugar beet growth and sugar content in certain field experiments. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet. Technol. 7:86–89.Google Scholar
15. Russ, O. G. and Anderson, L. E. 1960. Field bindweed control by combinations of cropping, cultivation, and 2,4-D. Weeds 8:397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Stahler, L. M. 1948. Shade and moisture factors in competition between selected crops and field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 40:490–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Stout, Myron. 1961. A new look at some nitrogen relationships affecting the quality of sugar beets. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 11:388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. 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. 51:672–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1961. Control of field bindweed and other perennial weeds with benzoic and phenylacetic acids. Weeds 9:423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1962. Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10:58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar