Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:44:37.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of Triploid Hybrid Bermudagrass Cultivars and Common Bermudagrass to Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Theodore M. Webster ,
Craig W. Bednarz  and
Wayne W. Hanna
Theodore M. Webster*
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31794
Craig W. Bednarz
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31794
Wayne W. Hanna
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The potential weediness of hybrid bermudagrass cultivars in nontarget areas is an important factor when considering the development of herbicide-resistant cultivars. Field studies evaluated the response of common bermudagrass, hexaploid hybrid ‘Tifton-10’, and two triploid hybrid bermudagrass cultivars (‘TifEagle’ and ‘TifSport’) to clethodim, fluazifop-p, glufosinate, glyphosate, and quizalofop-p. Glyphosate was more consistent than clethodim and clethodim plus glyphosate in controlling common bermudagrass. The triploid cultivars were equally sensitive to each of these treatments, whereas Tifton-10 control was highest with treatments that included glyphosate. Variability between years in control of common bermudagrass was attributed to differences in plant size at application, with greater control of smaller plants. All herbicides reduced common bermudagrass plant diameters ≥ 93% in 1999 when grown without a crop. However, in 2001, only herbicide treatments that included two applications of 1.1 kg ai/ha glyphosate reduced plant diameters 6 to 59%. None of the other treatments reduced common bermudagrass plant diameters compared with pretreatment values. When grown with cotton, fluazifop-p and 4.5 kg/ha glyphosate were the only treatments consistent across cultivars and years. All herbicide treatments reduced triploid hybrid bermudagrass plant diameters ≥ 90%, whereas Tifton-10 plant diameters were reduced > 86% by all treatments, with the exception of clethodim. As in the non-cropland study, common bermudagrass plant diameters were reduced ≥ 97% by herbicides in 1999, whereas in 2001, only fluazifop-p and glyphosate treatments reduced plant diameters compared with the nontreated control. Both the lack of aggressiveness and susceptibility to common herbicides of the triploid hybrid cultivars relative to common bermudagrass indicates that these non–pollen-producing or -receiving cultivars are reasonable candidates for the introduction of herbicide resistance.

Keywords

Clethodimfluazifop-pglufosinateglyphosatequizalofop-pcommon bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. # CYNDA ‘Tifton-10’hybrid bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. × Cynodon transvaalensis Burtt-Davy ‘TifEagle’, ‘TifSport’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Transgenic turfgrassturfgrass weed managementfb, followed bytriploid hybrid cultivars, grouping of TifEagle and TifSport bermudagrass cultivarsWAP, weeks after transplanting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 509 - 515
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

Bedmar, F. 1992. Evaluation on postemergence grass herbicides against Cynodon dactylon in sunflower. Ann. Appl. Biol. 120:58–59.Google Scholar
Bedmar, F. 1997. Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in sunflower (Helianthus annuus), soybean (Glycine max), and potato (Solanum tuberosum) with postemergence graminicides. Weed Technol. 11:683–688.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M., Chandler, J. M., and Bridges, D. C. 1987. Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) ecotype response to herbicides. Weed Technol. 1:221–225.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M., Whitwell, T., and Street, J. E. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:503–506.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and Wills, G. D. 1985. Susceptibility of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) biotypes to several herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:848–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states—broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:299–313.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1999. Weed survey—southern states: horticultural, pasture, recreational, and industrial subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:280–318.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. 1999. Tandem constructs: preventing the rise of superweeds. Trends Biotechnol. 17:361–366.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1995. Comparison of postemergence herbicides for common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:825–828.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1989. Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control with postemergence herbicides in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 3:267–271.Google Scholar
Hanna, W. W. 1997. ‘Tift 94’ bermudagrass. U.S. plant patent 10,079. October 21, 1997.Google Scholar
Hanna, W. W. 1999. Bermudagrass named ‘TifEagle’. U.S. plant patent 11,163. December 21, 1999.Google Scholar
Hanna, W. W., Burton, G. W., and Johnson, A. W. 1990. Registration of ‘Tifton 10’ turf bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 30:1355–1356.Google Scholar
Hanna, W. W., Carrow, R. N., and Powell, A. J. 1997. Registration of ‘Tift 94’ bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 37:1012.Google Scholar
Hanna, W. W. and Elsner, J. E. 1999. Registration of ‘TifEagle’ bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 39:1258.Google Scholar
Kind, M. 2000. Turf talk: transgenic turf? Not yet. Golf Course Manage. February: 48.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1989. Intriguing world of weeds: bermudagrass. Weed Technol. 3:433–435.Google Scholar
Rochecouste, E. 1962a. Studies on the biotypes of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. I. Botanical investigations. Weed Res. 2:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochecouste, E. 1962b. Studies on the biotypes of Cynodon dactyon (L.) Pers. II. Growth response to trichloroacetic and 2,2-dichloropropionic acids. Weed Res. 2:136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states: grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:247–274.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar