Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T10:18:36.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluations of Selected Herbicides and Rates for Long-Term Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kevin W. Bradley  and
Edward S. Hagood Jr.
Kevin W. Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
Edward S. Hagood Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two field trials were established in Virginia during 1998, 1999, and 2000 to evaluate long-term mugwort control with varying rates of dicamba, triclopyr, clopyralid, picloram, metsulfuron, glufosinate, glyphosate, and the dimethylamine salt and the isooctyl ester of 2,4-D. A logarithmic sprayer was utilized in the first field trial to evaluate mugwort control with each of these herbicides, and, except for metsulfuron, rates ranged from 0.28 to 8.9 kg ai/ha. Mugwort control with metsulfuron was evaluated at a lower rate range. In addition, mugwort control was evaluated with a logarithmic range of pelargonic acid rates in combination with constant rates of glyphosate, glufosinate, and the dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D. Complete control of mugwort plants and rhizomes was achieved at 1 yr after treatment with picloram at rates ≥ 0.28 kg ai/ha, with clopyralid at rates ≥ 4.4 kg ai/ha, and with glyphosate at 8.9 kg ai/ha. Greater than 80% mugwort control was also achieved at 1 yr after treatment with clopyralid at rates ≥ 0.28 kg/ha, with glyphosate at rates ≥ 4.4 kg/ha, and with dicamba at 8.9 kg ai/ha. However, all rates (≤ 8.9 kg ai/ha) of glufosinate, triclopyr, and the dimethylamine salt and the isooctyl ester of 2,4-D provided less than 50% mugwort control at 1 yr after treatment. Similar results were obtained with metsulfuron at rates ≤ 0.063 kg ai/ha. The addition of pelargonic acid to glyphosate, glufosinate, or the dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D did not significantly enhance mugwort control when compared with applications of these herbicides alone. Additionally, progressively higher rates of pelargonic acid in combination with glyphosate, glufosinate, or the dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D resulted in antagonism of these herbicides. In separate field trials conducted in 2000, reduced rates of picloram were evaluated. In these dose–response trials, picloram at 0.28 kg/ha was the lowest rate that consistently provided greater than 90% control of mugwort at 3 mo after treatment. Collectively, the results from both trials indicate that excellent long-term mugwort control may be achieved with relatively low use rates of picloram (0.28 kg/ha) and clopyralid (0.28 kg/ha), but higher rates were needed for glyphosate (8.9 kg/ha) and dicamba (8.9 kg/ha). Results also indicate that little to no long-term control of mugwort will be achieved with applications of glufosinate, metsulfuron, triclopyr, or the dimethylamine salt and the isooctyl ester of 2,4-D, even at exceptionally high use rates.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-D dimethylamine saltdicamba2,4-D isooctyl esterglufosinateglyphosatemetsulfuronpelargonic acidpicloramtriclopyrmugwort, Artemisia vulgaris L. #3 ARTVUGrowth regulator herbicides, logarithmic sprayer, nonselective herbicides, perennial weed control, regrowth, rhizomeMAT, month after treatmentYAT, year after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 164 - 170
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

Ahrens, J. F. 1976. Chemical control of Artemisia vulgaris in ornamentals. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 30: 303–307.Google Scholar
Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, L. H. 1930. The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture. Volume 1. New York: The Macmillan. 1,200 p.Google Scholar
Bingham, S. W. 1964. Chemical control of mugwort. Weeds 13: 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, M. Y., Hagood, E. S. Jr., and Johnson, S. M. 1997. Evaluation of herbicide programs for mugwort control in corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:34.Google Scholar
Dorph-Petersen, K. 1925. Examinations of the occurrence and vitality of various weed species under different conditions, made at the Danish State Seed Testing Station during the years 1896-1923. Rep. 4th Int. Seed Testing Congr., Cambridge 4: 124–138.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Puffer, C. 1991. Herbicide Use in the United States. Washington: Quality of the Environment Division. 130 p.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. 1998. Herbicide Handbook. Supplement to 7th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 103 p.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. 1,129 p.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, F., Kapeluszny, T., Kolasa, A., and Lecyk, Z. 1968. Fertility of some species of ruderal weeds. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Slodowska (Poland). Sect. E, Agric. 22: 221–231.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Hagood, E. S. 2000. Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol. 14: 667–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabbitt, A. E. and Cook, R. N. 1964. Control of Artemisia vulgaris around established shrubs. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 18: 239–242.Google Scholar
Rogerson, A. B. 1964. A Study of Mugwort. I. Growth Habits and Control. II. Effects of 2,3,6-Trichlorophenylacetic Acid on Certain Respiratory Enzymes. . Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 121 p.Google Scholar
Rogerson, A. B. and Bingham, S. W. 1971. Uptake and translocation of selected herbicides in mugwort. Weed Sci. 19: 325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, S. and Zorner, P. 1996. The use of pelargonic acid as a weed management tool. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf. 48: 46–47.Google Scholar
Sheets, T. J. and Worsham, A. D. 1991. Comparative Effects of Soil-Applied Dicamba and Picloram on Flue-Cured Tobacco. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University. Technical Bulletin No. 295. 25 p.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 397 p.Google Scholar
Wahlers, R. L., Burton, J. D., and Zorner, P. S. 1996. Activity of Scythe™ herbicide (pelargonic acid) as a glyphosate synergist. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:103.Google Scholar
Whisenant, Steven G. 1987. Selective control of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) with clopyralid. Weed Sci. 35: 120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1989. Sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) and brittle pricklypear (Opuntia fragilis) control. Weed Technol. 3: 272–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar