Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:25:33.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Cultivar Tolerance and Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) Control with Diclofop, BAY SMY 1500, and Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant. Pathol. Weed Sci., Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
M. Todd Wesley
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant. Pathol. Weed Sci., Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762

Abstract

In the field, 14 soft red winter wheat cultivars responded differently to 1.1 kg ai ha–1 diclofop, 1.7 kg ai ha–1 BAY SMY 1500, and 0.42 kg ai ha–1 metribuzin applied POST. Diclofop and metribuzin did not injure any cultivar more than 10% on a silty clay soil. However, BAY SMY 1500 injured ‘Pioneer 2551’ and ‘Coker 983’ 39 and 21%, respectively, in March. All other cultivars were injured less than 10% by BAY SMY 1500. Early injury did not translate into yield loss in the cultivar tolerance study. In an application timing study for Italian ryegrass control, late-season ratings indicated better control with two-leaf applications than with PRE applications for all treatments. Delaying application to the three-tiller stage reduced control with BAY SMY 1500 or metribuzin, but not with diclofop. On the sandier soil at this location, wheat injury with 0.28 or 0.43 kg ha–1 metribuzin or 2.2 kg ha–1 BAY SMY 1500 was sufficient to reduce wheat yield compared with other treatments, despite good Italian ryegrass control.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Donald, W. W., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1980. Selectivity of diclofop-methyl between wheat and wild oats: growth and herbicide metabolism. Physiol. Plant. 49:459464.Google Scholar
2. Elmore, C. D. 1988. Weed survey-Southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:406408.Google Scholar
3. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., and Stark, J. C. 1986. Metribuzin absorption and translocation in two barley cultivars. Weed Sci. 34:491495.Google Scholar
4. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., and Stark, J. C. 1986. Metribuzin metabolism as the basis for tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Res. 27:4955.Google Scholar
5. Graf, G. T., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential responses of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137139.Google Scholar
6. Griffin, J. L. 1985. Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 34:98100.Google Scholar
7. Hack, H., Eue, L., Strang, R. H., and Zeck, W. M. 1985. SMY 1500—a new selective herbicide for weed control in winter cereals. p. 3942 in Br. Crop Prot. Counc., ed. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds. Vol. 1 BCPC Publishers, Croydon.Google Scholar
8. Hardcastle, W. S. 1974. Differences in the tolerance of metribuzin by varieties of soybeans. Weed Res. 14:181184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Khodayari, K., Frans, R. E., and Collins, F. C. 1983. Diclofop—a selective herbicide for Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 31:436438.Google Scholar
10. Liebl, R. A., and Worsham, A. D. 1984. Annual ryegrass interference in wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:310.Google Scholar
11. Mangeot, B. L., Slife, F. E., and Rieck, C. E. 1979. Differential metabolism of metribuzin by two soybean (Glycine max) cultivars. Weed Sci. 27:267269.Google Scholar
12. Ratliff, R. L., Peeper, T. F., Wheless, T. G., Basler, E., and Nguyen, H. 1984. Metabolism of metribuzin by two winter wheat cultivars, TAM W 101 and Vona. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:365.Google Scholar
13. Ratliff, R. L., and Peeper, T. F. 1987. Bromus control in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) with the ethylthio analog of metribuzin. Weed Technol. 1:235241.Google Scholar
14. Runyan, T. J., McNeil, W. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:9497.Google Scholar
15. Schroeder, J., Banks, P. A., and Nichols, R. L. 1985. Soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar response to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 34:6669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Shaw, D. R., Peeper, T. F., and Westerman, R. L. 1986. Persistence of phytotoxicity of metribuzin and its ethylthio analog. Weed Sci. 34:409412.Google Scholar
17. Shimabukuro, R. H., Walsh, W. C., and Hoerauf, R. A. 1979. Metabolism and selectivity of diclofop-methyl in wild oat and wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:615623.Google Scholar
18. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161165.Google Scholar
19. Todd, B. G., and Stobbe, E. H. 1977. Selectivity of diclofop-methyl among wheat, barley, wild oat, and green foxtail. Weed Sci. 25:382385.Google Scholar
20. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Herbicide Handbook. 6th ed. Champaign, IL.Google Scholar