Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:09:28.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volunteer Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) Interference and Control in Barley (Hordeum vulgare)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David A. Wall  and
George H. Friesen
David A. Wall
Affiliation:
Agric. Can., Res. Stn., P.O. Box 3001, Morden, MB, Canada R0G 1J0
George H. Friesen
Affiliation:
Agric. Can., Res. Stn., P.O. Box 3001, Morden, MB, Canada R0G 1J0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research conducted over 3 yr showed that volunteer Jerusalem artichoke was controlled effectively with clopyralid plus 2,4-D, dicamba plus 2,4-D, or 2,4-D alone applied postemergence at rates which did not injure spring barley. Glyphosate and paraquat applied preemergence to the crop did not reduce the number of Jerusalem artichoke shoots. Jerusalem artichoke which survived or escaped treatment was highly competitive with barley, as 4 to 6 surviving shoots/m2 could reduce seed yield 20%.

Keywords

Clopyralid, 3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic aciddicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycineparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidJerusalem artichoke, Helianthus tuberosus L. #3 HELTUbarley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Bedford’ # HORVSClopyraliddicambaglyphosateparaquat2,4-DHELTUHORVS
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 170 - 172
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. Chubey, B. B., and Dorrell, D. G. 1982. Columbia Jerusalem artichoke. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:537–539.Google Scholar
2. Duvnjak, Z., Kosaric, N., and Kliza, S. 1982. Production of alcohol from Jerusalem artichokes by yeasts. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 24:2297–2308.Google Scholar
3. Hamill, A. S. 1976. Jerusalem artichoke control with glyphosate. Res. Rep., Expert Comm. Weeds (East. Sect.) 386.Google Scholar
4. Hamill, A. A. 1981. Jerusalem artichoke control — 81. Res. Rep., Expert Comm. Weeds (East. Sect.) 293.Google Scholar
5. Kiehn, F. A., and Chubey, B. B. 1985. Challenger Jerusalem artichoke. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:803–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Kosaric, N., Cosentino, G. P., and Wieczorek, A. 1984. The Jerusalem artichoke as an agricultural crop. Biomass 5:1–36.Google Scholar
7. Swanton, C. J., and Brown, R. H. 1980. Herbicide applications for control of volunteer Jerusalem artichoke. Res. Rep., Expert Comm. Weeds (East. Sect.) 354.Google Scholar
8. Swanton, C. J., and Brown, R. H. 1981. Effect of four postemergence herbicides on Jerusalem artichoke applied at different growth stages. Res. Rep., Expert Comm. Weeds (East. Sect.) 386.Google Scholar
9. Vanstone, D. E., and Chubey, B. B. 1978. Herbicides for the control of volunteer Jerusalem artichoke. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:571–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wall, D. A., Kiehn, F. A., and Friesen, G. H. 1986. Control of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Sci. 34:761–764.Google Scholar
11. Wyse, D. L., and Wilfahet, L. 1982. Today's weed; Jerusalem artichoke. Weeds Today 12(1):14–16.Google Scholar
12. Wyse, D. L., Young, F. L., and Jones, R. J. 1986. Influence of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) density and duration of interference on soybean (Glycine max) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 34:243–247.Google Scholar