Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:08:14.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Survey of Weed Scientists' Perceptions on the Significance of Crabgrasses (Digitaria spp.) in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tae-Joon Kim ,
Joseph C. Neal ,
Joseph M. Ditomaso  and
Frank S. Rossi
Tae-Joon Kim
Affiliation:
Screening Research Division, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT), P.O. Box 107, Yusong, Taejon 305-600, South Korea
Joseph C. Neal
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Joseph M. Ditomaso
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops, Weed Science Program, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Frank S. Rossi*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey was conducted to document the significance of crabgrass species among cropping systems and geographical regions in the continental United States. Surveys were mailed to 117 weed scientists, at least one in each state, including, where possible, extension weed scientists with responsibilities in each of the major agronomic and horticultural crops plus turfgrass systems. A 62% response rate was achieved. Large, smooth, and southern crabgrasses were considered at least occasionally important, with India and blanket crabgrasses considered rarely or not important. Smooth crabgrass and large crabgrass were considered to be important species in most of the latitudinal range, whereas southern crabgrass was considered to be important only in the southern states. Crabgrasses were considered to be more problematic in turf than in other cropping systems. From a regional perspective in turf, large crabgrass was the most important species in the Southeast, followed by southern crabgrass and smooth crabgrass. In the Northeast, smooth crabgrass was perceived as the more important species, but large crabgrass was more important in the north-central states.

Keywords

Blanket crabgrass, Digitaria serotina (Walt.) Michx. #3 DIGSOcrabgrass, Digitaria sppIndia crabgrass, Digitaria longiflora (Retz.) Pers. # DIGLOlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAsmooth crabgrass, Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Muhl. # DIGISsouthern crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel. # DIGSPGeographic distributionturfgrass
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 239 - 242
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

Bhowmik, P. C. 1987. Smooth crabgrass Digitaria ischaemum control in Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) turf with herbicides applied preemergence. Weed Technol. 1: 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chism, W. J. and Bingham, S. W. 1991. Postemergence control of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) with herbicides. Weed Sci. 39: 62–66.Google Scholar
Danneberger, T. K. 1993. Turfgrass Ecology and Management. Cleveland, OH: G.I.E. Publishers. 201 p.Google Scholar
Dernoeden, P. H., Mahoney, M. J., and Carrol, M. J. 1992. Smooth crabgrass control in perennial ryegrass with repeated low fenoxaprop application rates. HortScience 27: 1,001–1,003.Google Scholar
Hafliger, E. and Scholz, H. 1980. Grass Weed 1. Basel, Switzerland: Ciba-Geigy Corporation. pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. Volume 2. New York: Dover. pp. 578–579.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds—Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: The East-West Food Institute.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1996a. Effect of reduced dithiopyr and prodiamine rates on large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control in common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) turf. Weed Technol. 10: 322–326.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1996b. Reduced rates of preemergence and postemergence herbicides for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and goosegrass (Eleusine indica) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 44: 585–590.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1988. Intriguing world of weeds: crabgrass. Weed Technol. 2: 114–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, T. R., Colvin, D. L., Dickens, R., Everest, J. W., Hall, D., and McCarty, L. B. 1992. Weeds of Southern Turfgrasses. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 36–39.Google Scholar
Peters, R. A. and Dunn, S. 1971. Life history studies as related to weed control in the northeast. 6. Large and small crabgrass. Northeast Regional Weed Control Technical Committee (NE-42). Storrs, CT: Connecticut Agricultural Research Station.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Toole, E. H. and Toole, V. K. 1941. Progress of germination of seed of Digitaria as influenced by germination temperature and other factors. J. Agric. Res. 63: 65–90.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 46–47.Google Scholar
Webster, R. D. 1987. Taxonomy of Digitaria section Digitaria in North America (Poaceae: Paniceae). Sida 12 (1): 209–222.Google Scholar
Webster, R. D. and Hatch, S. T. 1990. Taxonomy of Digitaria section Aequiglumae (Poaceae: Paniceae). Sida 14 (2): 145–167.Google Scholar