Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:48:27.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mefluidide and Acifluorfen Interactions on Ivyleaf Morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea), Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and Common Cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Barbara J. Hook  and
Scott Glenn
Barbara J. Hook
Affiliation:
Agronomy Dep., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Scott Glenn
Affiliation:
Agronomy Dep., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In greenhouse studies, postemergence applications of 0.1 or 0.3 kg ai/ha mefluidide {N-[2,4-dimethyl-5-[[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl] amino] phenyl] acetamide} as a tank mixture with 0.3, 0.4, or 0.6 kg ai/ha acifluorfen {5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid}, or as a pretreatment 3, 5, or 7 days prior to acifluorfen treatment, often increased injury to ivyleaf morningglory [Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. ♯3 IPOHE], velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ♯ ABUTH), and common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr. ♯ XANPE), compared to the injury from either herbicide alone. All sequential treatments with 0.1 kg ai/ha mefluidide and 0.3 kg ai/ha acifluorfen increased injury and decreased dry weight of ivyleaf morningglory and velvetleaf when compared with 0.6 kg/ha acifluorfen alone.

Keywords

Sequential treatmentstank mixturesynergismIPOHEABUTHXANPE
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 198 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Baldwin, F. L. and Frans, R. E. 1972. Soybean and weed response to dinoseb and chloroxuron applied topically. Weed Sci. 20:511–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–603.Google Scholar
3. Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, R. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:224–228.Google Scholar
4. Glenn, S., Rieck, C. E., Ely, D. G., and Bush, L. P. 1980. Quality of tall fescue forage affected by mefluidide. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:391–393.Google Scholar
5. Hartnett, J. P. 1978. RH-6201 – A new postemergence soybean herbicide. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:28–29.Google Scholar
6. Johnson, W. O., Kollman, G. T., Swithenbank, C., and Yih, R. Y. 1978. RH-6201 (Blazer): A new broad spectrum herbicide for postemergence use in soybeans. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26:285–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci. 30:520–526.Google Scholar
8. Mathias, W. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Control of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28:409–415.Google Scholar
9. McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1979. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with mefluidide applied postemergence. Weed Sci. 27:42–47.Google Scholar
10. Rao, S. R. and Harger, T. R. 1981. Mefluidide-bentazon interactions on soybeans (Glycine max) and red rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 29:208–212.Google Scholar
11. Watschke, T. L. 1976. Growth regulation of Kentucky bluegrass with several growth retardants. Agron. J. 68:787–791.Google Scholar
12. Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 14:49–51.Google Scholar