Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:20:51.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perennial Vine Control in Multiple Cropping Systems on a Clay Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Dennis Elmore ,
Larry G. Heatherly  and
Richard A. Wesley
C. Dennis Elmore
Affiliation:
Field Crops Mechanization Res. Unit, and Soybean Prod. Res. Unit (LGH), U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Stoneville, MS 38776
Larry G. Heatherly
Affiliation:
Field Crops Mechanization Res. Unit, and Soybean Prod. Res. Unit (LGH), U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Stoneville, MS 38776
Richard A. Wesley
Affiliation:
Field Crops Mechanization Res. Unit, and Soybean Prod. Res. Unit (LGH), U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An area of a shrink-swell clay soil (Tunica clay, Vertic Haplaquept) with an established population of redvine, trumpetcreeper, honeyvine milkweed, redberry moonseed, and maypop passionflower was treated with dicamba once in the fall of 1983. The effect on perennial vines was determined for the following 4 yr in three rotational cropping systems involving winter wheat, soybean, corn, and sorghum, all with and without irrigation. Dicamba reduced the population of perennial vines 80% over 4 yr. Redvine and trumpetcreeper, the first and second most abundant species, were reduced by over 83 and 76%, respectively. Yield of soybean increased 17% in 1985 and 1987 while corn yield increased 9% in 1986 with dicamba use. In 1984 no effects on crop yield were measured. This inconsistent crop yield reponse after dicamba treatment, even though perennial vines were suppressed, must be considered in evaluating the economics of using dicamba for perennial vine control.

Keywords

Dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acidcorn, Zea mays L.honeyvine milkweed, Ampelamus albidus (Nutt.)Britt. #3 AMPALredberry moonseed, Cocculus carolinus (L.) DC. # COUCAmaypop passionflower, Passiflora incarnata L. # PAQINredvine, Brunnichia ovata (Walt.)Shinners # BRVCIsorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.)Moench.soybean, Glycine max (L.)Merr., trumpetcreeper, Campsis radicans (L.)Seem. ex Bureau # CMIRAwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Brunnichia ovataCampsis radicansDicambasoybeancornsorghumAMPALBRVCICMIRACOUCAPAQIN
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 282 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Anonymous. 1970. Selected weeds of the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handb. 366, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2. DeFelice, M. S., and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Perennial vine control for soybeans and grain sorghum in Arkansas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:44.Google Scholar
3. DeFelice, M. S., and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Redvine and trumpetcreeper control in soybeans and grain sorghum. Arkansas Farm Res. 29:5.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1984. Perennial vines in the Delta of Mississippi. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Bull. 927. Miss. State, MS.Google Scholar
5. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed survey–southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:137–158.Google Scholar
6. Elmore, C. D., and Heatherly, L. G. 1988. Planting system and weed control effects on soybean grown on clay soil. Agron. J. 80:818–821.Google Scholar
7. Heatherly, L. G., and Elmore, C. D. 1983. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) to planting in untilled, weedy seedbed on clay soil. Weed Sci. 31:93–99.Google Scholar
8. Heatherly, L. G., and Elmore, C. D. 1986. Irrigation and planting date effects on soybean grown on clay soils. Agron. J. 78:576–580.Google Scholar
9. Hurst, H. R., Williford, J. R., and Wooten, O. B. 1979. Redvine control in cotton. Proc. Third Cotton Weed Res. Conf. in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., p. 145–147.Google Scholar
10. Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1984. Field comparison of dicamba formulations for control of perennial weeds. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:124.Google Scholar
11. LaClerg, E. L., Leonard, W. H., and Clark, A. G. 1962. Field plot technique. Burgess Pub. Co. Minneapolis, MN. p. 215–234.Google Scholar
12. Mack, R. E., Hanson, C. L., and Shaw, D.R. 1986. Evaluation of preplant herbicide applications for redvine control in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:77.Google Scholar
13. Moshier, L. J., Russ, O. G., O'Connor, J. P., and Claassen, M. M. 1986. Honeyvine milkweed (Ampelamus albidus) response to foliar herbicides. Weed Sci. 34:730–734.Google Scholar
14. Pyle, S. L., and Krueger, W. A. 1984. Trumpetcreeper control with selected herbicides used in non-cropped areas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:141.Google Scholar
15. Wehtje, G. 1984. Biology and herbicidal response of two perennial weeds: Passiflora incarnata and Solanum dimidiatum . Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37.123.Google Scholar
16. Wehtje, G., Reed, R. B., and Dute, R. R. 1985. Reproductive biology and herbicidal sensitivity of maypop passionflower (Passiflora incarnata). Weed Sci. 33:484–489.Google Scholar
17. Wiese, A. F., and Lavake, D. E. 1985. Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 34:77–80.Google Scholar