Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:48:41.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) Cultivar Response to Diclofop, MSMA and Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lambert B. McCarty
Affiliation:
Environ. Hortic. Univ. Fla., Gainesville, FL 32611-0512
Landon C. Miller
Affiliation:
Hortic., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0375
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Agron., Univ. Fla., Gainesville, FL 32611-0311

Abstract

Postemergence grass weed control in turf-type bermudagrass is currently available only with repeated applications of organic arsenicals and/or with combinations of metribuzin which decrease turf quality. Research was conducted to determine tolerance of the turf-type bermudagrass cultivars, Tifway, Ormond, and common, to diclofop rates ranging from 0.54 to 4.48 kg ai ha-1 with and without MSMA (2.2 kg ai ha-1) and metribuzin (0.2 kg ai ha-1). Bermudagrass cultivars tolerated diclofop well. When injury was evident, a rate response was noted, with higher rates (3.4 and 4.5 kg ha-1) resulting in increased phytotoxicity. However, this level of phytotoxicity was acceptable and the turf soon recovered (3 to 14 d). The addition of crop oil concentrate (1.25% v/v) did not affect turf quality. Addition of MSMA resulted in slightly lower turf quality than diclofop alone. However, these responses were acceptable and usually the turf recovered by 14 d after treatment. Metribuzin applied alone or in combination with diclofop damaged turf to unacceptable levels and up to 21 d were required for turf recovery.

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. Andersen, R. N. 1976. Response of monocotyledons to HOE 22870 and HOE 23408. Weed Sci. 24:266269.Google Scholar
2. Bingham, S. W. 1985. Effectiveness of herbicides for Eleusine indica control during Cynodon dactylon improvement in golf course fairways. p. 705715 in Lemaire, F., ed. Proc. 5th Int. Turf. Res. Conf. Avignon, France.Google Scholar
3. Dernoeden, P. H. 1990. Comparison of three herbicides for selective tall fescue control in Kentucky bluegrass. Agron. J. 82:278282.Google Scholar
4. Jagschitz, J. A. 1975. Postemergence crabgrass and nutsedge control in turfgrass with herbicides. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:376:381.Google Scholar
5. Johnson, B. J. 1975. Postemergence control of large crabgrass and goosegrass in turf. Weed Sci. 23:404409.Google Scholar
6. Johnson, B. J. 1976. Turfgrass tolerance and weed control with methazole and metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:512517.Google Scholar
7. Johnson, B. J. 1980. Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Sci. 28:378381.Google Scholar
8. Lewis, W. M. 1981. Metribuzin for preemergence and postemergence control of crabgrass and goosegrass in bermudagrass turf. p. 383390 in Sheard, R. W., ed. Proc. 4th Int. Turf. Res. Conf., Am. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Am., and Int. Turf Soc., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
9. McCarty, L. B. 1989. Bentgrass tolerance to postemergence grass herbicides. Agron. Abstr. 81:161.Google Scholar
10. McCarty, L. B. 1989. Goosegrass control and turfgrass tolerance to diclofop-methyl. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:144.Google Scholar
11. Mulder, C.E.G., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1979. Influence of moisture on soil-incorporated diclofop. Weed Sci. 27:8387.Google Scholar
12. Murdoch, C. L., and Nishimoto, R. K. 1982. Diclofop for goosegrass control in bermudagrass putting greens. HortScience 17:914915.Google Scholar
13. Ross, M. A., and Lembi, C. A. 1985. Applied Weed Science. Macmillan Publ. Co., New York. 340 p.Google Scholar
14. West, L. D., Dawson, J. H., and Appleby, A. P. 1980. Factors influencing barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with diclofop. Weed Sci. 28:366371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar