Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:11:22.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Glyphosate on Introduced and Native Grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rodney G. Lym  and
Donald R. Kirby
Rodney G. Lym
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Weed Sci., N.D. State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Donald R. Kirby
Affiliation:
Dep. Anim. Range Sci., N.D. State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of glyphosate applied alone and with 2,4-D as a commercial mixture on 30 native or introduced grass species was evaluated. Grass yield averaged 98 and 87% of the untreated controls when glyphosate was applied in the fall at 0.2 or 0.4 kg ae ha-1, respectively, alone or with 2,4-D at 0.35 or 0.7 kg ae ha-1. Western wheatgrass production decreased more than any other species present in a native rangeland site following either a spring or fall glyphosate application. In seeded plots, intermediate wheatgrass was the most and ‘Fairway’ crested wheatgrass the least susceptible to glyphosate plus 2,4-D with average yields of 57 and 97% compared with untreated controls of each species, respectively. Glyphosate reduced the yield of ‘Nordan’ standard crested wheatgrass more than that of Fairway crested wheatgrass or other diploid cultivars. The greater the spring precipitation following a fall application of glyphosate, the less effect of glyphosate on forage yield. Glyphosate plus 2,4-D can be used for weed control in pasture and rangeland provided some yield reduction is acceptable.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidFairway crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Beauv.]intermediate wheatgrass [Elymus intermedia (Host) Nevski]standard crested wheatgrass [A. desertorum (Fisch. ex. Link) Schult]western wheatgrass [Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) Love]leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. ♯ EPHESRangelandbromegrassblue gramaStipa spp
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 421 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Amy, A. C., and Schmid, A. R. 1942. A study of the inclined point quadrat method of botanical analysis of pasture mixtures. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 34:238–247.Google Scholar
2. Hein, D. G. 1988. Single and repetitive picloram treatments on leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and resulting changes in shoot density, canopy cover, forage production, and utilization by cattle. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Wyo. Univ. Microfilms. Ann Arbor, MI (Diss. Abstr. AAD88-27917).Google Scholar
3. Lym, R. G., Beck, K. G., Fay, P. K., Ferrell, M., and Peterson, M. 1991. Leafy spurge control with glyphosate plus 2,4-D: A regional research project. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 44:33–35.Google Scholar
4. Lym, R. G., and Kirby, D. R. 1987. Cattle foraging behavior in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)-infested rangeland. Weed Technol. 1:314–318.Google Scholar
5. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control with herbicides in North Dakota: 20-year summary. J. Range Manage. 38:149–154.Google Scholar
6. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1987. Leafy spurge control with resulting forage production from several herbicide treatments. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 19–20.Google Scholar
7. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1990. Cost-effective long-term leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:635–641.Google Scholar
8. Messersmith, C. G., and Lym, R. G. 1983. Distribution and economic impacts of leafy spurge in North Dakota. N.D. Farm Res. 40(9):8–13.Google Scholar
9. Thompson, F., Leitch, J. A., and Leistritz, F. L. 1990. Economic impact of leafy spurge in North Dakota. N.D. Farm Res. 47(6):9–11.Google Scholar