Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:08:23.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Glyphosate and Several ACCase-Inhibitor Herbicides on Wirestem Muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dwight D. Lingenfelter  and
William S. Curran
Dwight D. Lingenfelter*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences; The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
William S. Curran
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences; The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies examined glyphosate and several ACCase-inhibitor herbicides for control of wirestem muhly. A field study evaluated application rate and timing for control in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Herbicides were applied at two rates, 4 and 6 wk after planting (WAP) of soybean when wirestem muhly was about 30 and 50 cm tall, respectively. A complimentary greenhouse experiment with the same herbicides examined wirestem muhly rhizome viability 30 days after herbicide application. A second field study examined optimum glyphosate application timing for control of wirestem muhly during a fallow rotation period. Glyphosate was applied at 14-day intervals from mid-May through early October. In the first field study, glyphosate, fluazifop, and clethodim provided better control of wirestem muhly than sethoxydim and quizalofop. Clethodim, fluazifop, and glyphosate provided 74 to 92% control over both rates and application timings, whereas quizalofop and sethoxydim were the least effective, providing only 52 to 64% control regardless of rate or timing. In the greenhouse, glyphosate was the most effective herbicide, providing at least 97% control and an 87% reduction in shoot biomass; sethoxydim and fluazifop were the least effective herbicides. All of the herbicides reduced rhizome viability compared to nontreated plants up to 71%, but no difference between herbicides was observed. In the second field study, end-of-season ratings revealed that glyphosate provided 95 to 100% control of wirestem muhly from applications made between late June and early September. The year following application, glyphosate provided 91 to 99% control of wirestem muhly from applications made between mid-June and early September. Applications earlier than mid-June or after early September resulted in less than 90% control. Overall, results show that (1) glyphosate was the most effective herbicide; (2) the ACCase-inhibitor herbicides differ in their effectiveness; and (3) rate and application timing can impact control.

Keywords

Clethodimfluazifopglyphosatesethoxydimquizalofopwirestem muhly, Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir.) Fern. MUHFRsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘A5403: 40-3-2’ACCase-inhibitor herbicidesapplication rateapplication timingherbicide-resistant soybeanrhizome viabilitywarm-season perennial grass
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 732 - 738
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

Baskerville, G. L. and Emin, P. 1969. Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures. Ecology 50:514–517.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M., Chandler, J. M., and Morrison, J. E. Jr. 1988. Glyphosate for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in no-till sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 36:510–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, R. F. and Moshier, L. J. 1991. Absorption, translocation, and activity of CGA-136872, DPX-V9360, and glyphosate in rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halpense). Weed Sci. 39:354–357.Google Scholar
Czapar, G. F. and Slife, F. W. 1982. Wirestem muhly control in soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 37:59–60.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1995. Wirestem muhly biology and management: http://ipcm.wisc.edu/uw_weeds/extension/articles/wiremuhly.htm. Accessed: November 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1996. Wirestem muhly management in corn and glyphosate-tolerant soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:56.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Banken, K. R. 1996. Relationship among green foxtail (Setaria viridis) seedling development, growing degree days, and time of nicosulfuron application. Weed Technol. 10:66–67.Google Scholar
Friesen, H. A. 1977. Effect of growth stage on quackgrass control with glyphosate. Weed Science Society of America Abstract, p. 3.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Hicks, C. P. and Jordan, T. N. 1984. Response of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), quackgrass (Agropyron repens), and wirestem muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) to postemergence grass herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:835–841.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, A. S. 1971. Manual of the grasses of the United States. New York, NY Dover Publications, Inc. 1051.Google Scholar
Jeffery, L. S., English, J. R., and Connell, J. 1981. The effect of fall application of glyphosate on corn (Zea mays), soybeans (Glycine max), and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halpense). Weed Sci. 29:190–196.Google Scholar
Klevorn, T. B. and Wyse, D. L. 1984. Effect of soil temperature and moisture on glyphosate photoassimilate distribution in quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 32:402–407.Google Scholar
Labovitch, L., Becker, R., and Bohn, J. 1984. Wirestem muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa): its biology and control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:71.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Azlin, W. R. 1978. Effects of environment on the toxicity of glyphosate to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:605–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, K. J., Moser, L. E., Vogel, K. P., Waller, S. S., Johnson, B. E., and Pedersen, J. F. 1991. Describing and quantifying growth stages of perennial forage grasses. Agron. J. 83:1073–1077.Google Scholar
Nandula, V. K., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., and Hartwig, N. L. 1995. Effectiveness of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron on wirestem muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:331–338.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., Thompson, H. E., and Benson, G. O. 1994. How a soybean plant develops. Ames, IA Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service Special Report No. 53. 28.Google Scholar
Scott, W. O. and Slife, F. W. 1960. A new corn field menace. Crops and Soils. June/July, 19–20.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. 1984. Seasonal development and control of wirestem muhly, Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir.) Fern. Proc. North Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. 39:92.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. 1985. Wirestem muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir.) Fern. Weeds Today 16:7–9.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY Comstock. 397.Google Scholar
Whitwell, T., Banks, P., Basler, E., and Santelmann, P. W. 1980. Glyphosate absorption and translocation in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and activity in horsenettle (Solanum carolinense). Weed Sci. 28:93–96.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS WSSA. 493.Google Scholar
Yaklich, R. W. and Kulik, M. M. 1979. Evaluation of vigor tests in soybean seeds: relationship of the standard germination test, seedling vigor classification, seedling length, and tetrazolium staining to field performance. Crop Sci. 19:247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar