Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:53:25.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Herbicides and Application Timing on Weed Control, Yield, and Nutritive Value of Tall Fescue Pastures and Hayfields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kristin K. Payne ,
Byron B. Sleugh  and
Kevin W. Bradley
Kristin K. Payne
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, 205 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65202
Byron B. Sleugh
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Indianapolis, IN 46268
Kevin W. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, 201 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65202
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 2007 through 2009 at four locations in Missouri to evaluate the effect of May and August herbicide applications on weed control, total biomass yield, and forage nutritive values. Experiments were conducted in established tall fescue pastures that contained natural infestations of common ragweed and tall ironweed. Treatments consisted of 2,4-D, metsulfuron, aminopyralid, 2,4-D + dicamba, 2,4-D + picloram, aminopyralid + 2,4-D, and 2,4-D + dicamba + metsulfuron. All herbicide treatments provided > 76% control of common ragweed 1 mo after treatment (MAT), except metsulfuron alone which provided ≤ 62% control. August applications provided greater reductions in common ragweed density than May applications the following spring. Few differences in tall ironweed density were observed, but metsulfuron-containing herbicides tended to provide the lowest reduction in tall ironweed stem density the following spring. Biomass yields were generally greater in nontreated compared to herbicide-treated plots. Crude protein (CP) concentration and relative feed value (RFV) were higher in nontreated compared with herbicide-treated biomass. Overall, the poorer nutritive values and lower biomass yields in the herbicide-treated compared with the nontreated biomass may be partially explained by the removal of common ragweed, tall ironweed, and legumes with the herbicide treatments. Pure samples of common ragweed and white clover were greater in nutritive values than pure samples of tall fescue at all June harvests. Results indicate that common ragweed offers nutritive values equivalent to or greater than tall fescue and white clover when harvested in June at the vegetative stage of growth and that the removal of common ragweed and tall ironweed with herbicide applications is not likely to improve forage nutritive values of the total harvested biomass of tall fescue pastures, at least by the season after treatment.

De 2007 a 2009 se realizaron experimentos de campo en cuatro sitios en Missouri para evaluar el efecto de la aplicación de herbicidas en mayo y agosto en el control de la maleza, el rendimiento total de la biomasa y los valores nutricionales del forraje. Los experimentos se llevaron al cabo en praderas establecidas con Lolium arundinacea que contenían infestaciones naturales de Ambrosia artemisiifolia y Vernonia gigantea. Los tratamientos consistieron en 2,4-D, metsulfurón, aminopyralid, 2,4-D + dicamba, 2,4-D + picloram, aminopyralid + 2,4-D y 2,4-D + dicamba + metsulfurón. Todos los tratamientos de herbicida proporcionaron un control de la Ambrosia artemisiifolia, mayor al 76%, un mes después del tratamiento (MAT), exceptuando al metsulfurón aplicado por sí solo, el cual proporcionó ≤ 62% de control. Las aplicaciones en agosto dieron como resultado mayores reducciones en la densidad de Ambrosia artemisiifolia que las aplicaciones de mayo, en la primavera siguiente. Se observaron pocas diferencias en la densidad de Vernonia gigantea, pero los herbicidas que contenían metsulfurón tendieron a proporcionar la más baja reducción en la densidad del tallo de la maleza mencionada, la primavera siguiente. Los rendimientos de biomasa fueron generalmente mayores en las parcelas no tratadas, comparadas con las que sí fueron tratadas con herbicidas. La concentración de proteína cruda (CP) y el valor alimenticio relativo (RFV) fueron más altos en los testigos no tratados comparados con la biomasa tratada con herbicida. En general, los valores nutricionales y de rendimiento de la biomasa mas bajos observados en los cultivos tratados con herbicida, comparados con los que no lo fueron, podrían ser parcialmente explicados por la remoción de la Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Vernonia gigantea y leguminosas con tratamiento de herbicida. Muestras puras de Ambrosia artemisiifolia y Trifolium repens, fueron mejores en valores nutricionales que las muestras puras de Lolium arundinacea, en todas las cosechas de junio. Los resultados indican que Ambrosia artemisiifolia ofrece valores nutricionales equivalentes o mayores que Lolium arundinacea y Trifolium repens, cuando ésta se cosecha en junio en el estado vegetativo de crecimiento, y que la remoción de Ambrosia artemisiifolia y Vernonia gigantea con aplicaciones de herbicida, probablemente no mejore los valores nutricionales del total de la biomasa cosechada de pasturas de Lolium arundinacea, al menos para la estación posterior al tratamiento.

Keywords

Aminopyralid2,4-D, dimethylamine salt of 2,4-Ddicambametsulfuronpicloramcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., AMBELtall ironweed, Vernonia gigantea (Walt.) Trel, VENALtall fescue, Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. Darbyshire, FESARNutritive valuebiomass yieldherbicide applicationscrude proteinrelative feed value
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 515 - 522
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

Anonymous 2007. Weed control and small grains, pastures, and forages. Pages. 109–128. in. University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences, ed Illinois Agriculture Pest Management Handbook. University of Illinois at Urbana –Champaign United Graphics.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2009. DuPont Escort XP herbicide product label. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Publication No. H-65699. Wilmington, DE: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 15 p.Google Scholar
Ball, D. M., Collins, M., Lacefield, G. D., Marten, N. P., Mertens, D. A., Olson, K. E., Putnam, D. H., Undersander, D. J., and Wolf, M. W. 2001. Understanding Forage Quality. Park Ridge, IL: American Farm Bureau Federation Publication 1-01. 17 p.Google Scholar
Barbour, B. M. and Meade, J. A. 1982. Further investigations of the effect of cutting height and date on anthesis of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:71–74.Google Scholar
Bosworth, S. C., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1985. Forage quality of selected cool-season weed species. Weed Sci. 34:150–154.Google Scholar
Bosworth, S. C., Hoveland, C. S., Buchanan, G. A., and Anthony, W. B. 1980. Forage quality of selected warm-season weed species. Agron. J. 72:1050–1054.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W. 1987. Weed control problems, approaches, and opportunities in rangeland. Weed Technol. 3:57–91.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. W. and Kendig, J. A. 2004. Weed and Brush Control Guide for Forages, Pastures, and Noncropland. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Extension MP 581. 32 p.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. J., Watson, V. H., and Cole, A. W. 1980. Canopy and chemistry of pasture weeds. Weed Sci. 28:139–141.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Cherney, J. H. and Johnson, K. D. 1993. Tall Fescue for Forage Production. http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forages/rotational/articles/PDFs-pubs/tall-fescue-for-forage.pdf. Accessed: October 30, 2009.Google Scholar
Cyr, D. R., Bewley, J. D., and Dumbroff, E. B. 1990. Seasonal dynamics of carbohydrate and nitrogenous components in the roots of perennial weeds. Plant Cell Environ. 13:359–365.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci. 48:255–265.Google Scholar
Green, J. D. and Martin, J. R. 1998. Weed Management in Grass Pastures, Hayfields, and Fencerows. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture AGR-172. 16 p.Google Scholar
James, T. K., Rahman, A., and Cornwell, M. J. 1999. Pasture tolerance to the herbicide metsulfuron-methyl. Proc. N. Z. Plant Prot. Conf. 52:240–244.Google Scholar
Jeranyama, P. and Garcia, A. D. 2004. Understanding Relative Feed Value (RFV) and Relative Forage Quality (RFQ). Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service ExEx8149. 3 p.Google Scholar
Jones, D. B., Christian, K. R., and Snaydon, R. W. 1971. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of some weed species during summer. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 11:403–406.Google Scholar
Mann, R. K., Rosser, S. W., and Witt, W. W. 1983. Biology and control of tall ironweed (Vernonia altissima). Weed Sci. 31:324–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Green, J. D., Ditsch, D. C., and Turner, J. W. 2006. Tall ironweed (Vernonia altissima Nutt.) control in pastures with fall-applied herbicides. Weed Technol. 20:52–57.Google Scholar
Marten, G. C. and Anderson, R. N. 1975. Forage nutritive value and palatability of 12 common annual weeds. Crop Sci. 15:821–827.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. 2007. Ragweeds—The Hay Fever Weeds. http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WorldOfWeeds.html. Accessed: August 31, 2007.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. L. and Kelley, K. W. 1995. Broadleaf herbicide effects on tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) seedhead density, forage yield, and quality. Weed Technol. 9:270–276.Google Scholar
Payne, K. K., Riley, E. B., Wait, J. D., and Bradley, K. W. 2008. Influence of spring and summer herbicide applications on weed control, total forage yield and total forage quality in tall fescue pastures in Missouri. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 63:180.Google Scholar
Stamm-Katovich, E. J., Becker, R. L., Sheaffer, C. C., and Halgerson, J. L. 1998. Seasonal fluctuations of carbohydrate levels in roots and crowns of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Sci. 46:540–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temme, D. G., Harvey, R. G., Fawcett, R. S., and Young, A. W. 1979. Effects of annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron. J. 71:51–54.Google Scholar
Undersander, D. 2007. New developments in forage testing. Pages. 26–34. in Proceedings of the Idaho Alfalfa and Forage Conference. Twin Falls, ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007. Farms, land in farms, value of land and buildings, and land use: 2007–2002. Pages. 354–358. in The 2007 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: USDA.Google Scholar