Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:58:05.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Italian Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) Control and Winter Wheat Response to POST Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey ,
George S. Cutts III ,
Lynn Sosnoskie  and
A. Stanley Culpepper
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, 2360 Research Way, Tifton, GA 31793
George S. Cutts III
Affiliation:
Texas Agrilife Research, Texas A&M University, 1102 East FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79406
Lynn Sosnoskie
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, One Shields Avenue, 1210 Plant and Environmental Sciences Bldg, Davis, CA 95616
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, 2360 Research Way, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate Italian ryegrass control and winter wheat tolerance to applications of diclofop, mesosulfuron plus methylated seed oil (MSO) alone or with 30% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN), mesosulfuron plus thifensulfuron plus tribenuron plus MSO, mesosulfuron plus MCPA plus MSO, or flufenacet plus metribuzin. Treatments were applied to wheat PRE, two- to three-leaf wheat (2–3 LF) at Feekes stage 1.0 or to one- to two-tiller wheat (TILL) at Feekes stage 3.0, depending on label recommendations. Studies were conducted in Williamson, GA, and Plains, GA, from autumn 2003 to spring 2005. Italian ryegrass control was variable, depending on location and year. Maximum and most-consistent Italian ryegrass control (> 90%) occurred with mesosulfuron plus MSO and UAN. Without UAN, control of Italian ryegrass with mesosulfuron varied from 44 to 97%. That variability was partially attributed to unfavorable environmental conditions associated with cold night time temperatures at or below 0 C, following applications. Wheat injury observed in response to herbicide treatments was minimal (< 15%) and transient; wheat recovered with no differences in yield.

Se realizaron estudios de campo para evaluar el control de Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum y la tolerancia del trigo de invierno a aplicaciones de diclofop, mesosulfuron más aceite de semilla metilado (MSO) solo o con 30% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN), mesosulfuron más thifensuluron más tribenuron más MSO, mesosulfuron más MCPA más MSO o flufenacet más metribuzin. Los tratamientos se aplicaron al trigo en PRE, a dos a tres hojas del trigo (2–3 LF) en el estado Feekes 1.0 o a uno a dos hijuelos (TILL) en el estado Feekes 3.0, dependiendo de las recomendaciones de las etiquetas. Los estudios se realizaron en Williamson, GA y en Plains, GA, desde el otoño de 2003 a la primavera de 2005. El control de L. perenne fue variable dependiendo del sitio y el año. El máximo control (>90%) se dio con mesosulfuron más MSO y UAN. Sin UAN, el control de L. perenne con mesosulfuron varió entre 47% y 97%. La variabilidad fue parcialmente atribuida a condiciones ambientales desfavorables asociadas a temperaturas nocturnas de 0 C o inferiores, después de las aplicaciones. El daño observado en el trigo en respuesta a los tratamientos con herbicidas fue mínimo (<15%) y transitorio. El trigo se recuperó y no hubo diferencias en rendimiento.

Keywords

DiclofopflufenacetmesosulfuronmetribuzinthifensulfurontribenuronItalian ryegrass, Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum (Lam.) Husnotwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Herbicideinjuryweed controlwinter wheat
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 644 - 648
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. 2008. Hoelon® 3EC Herbicide product label. http://fs1.agrian.com/pdfs/Hoelon_3ec_Herbicide_(31103)_Label.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2012. Research Triangle Park, NC : Bayer CropScience LP. 13 p.Google Scholar
Appleby, A. P., Colbert, D. R., and Olson, P. D. 1976. Winter wheat yield reduction from interference by Italian ryegrass. Agron. J. 68 :463–466.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Control of Italian ryegrass in wheat with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 17 :534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003a. Response of winter wheat and diclofop-methyl-sensitive and -resistant Italian ryegrass to AE F130060 03. Weed Sci. 51 :515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., Brann, D. E., and Griffey, C. A. 2004. Wheat cultivar tolerance to AE F130060 03. Weed Technol. 18 :881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003b. Influence of AE F130060 03 application timing on Italian ryegrass control. Weed Technol. 17 :842–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. A. 1995. Comparative above-ground development rates for several annual grass weeds and cereal grains. Weed Sci. 43 :410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betts, K. J., Ehlke, N. J., Wyse, D. L., Gronwald, J. W., and Somers, D. A. 1992. Mechanism of inheritance of diclofop resistance in Italian ryegrass. Weed Sci. 40 :184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beevers, L. and Cooper, J. P. 1964. Influence of temperature on growth and metabolism of ryegrass seedlings. Crop Sci. 4 :139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravin, F., Zanin, G., and Preston, C. 2001. Diclofop-methyl resistance in populations of Lolium spp. from central Italy. Weed Res. 41 :49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christopher, J. T., Powles, S. B., and Holtum, J. M. 1992. Resistant to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides in annual ryegrass involves at least two mechanisms. Plant Physiol. 100 :1909–1913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2003. Wheat tolerance and Italian ryegrass control by AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 08 mixed with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 17 :881–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2004. Wheat tolerance and Italian ryegrass control with AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 08 applied in nitrogen. Weed Technol. 18 :93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. 2012. Small grain weed control. in Georgia Pest Control Handbook. Athens, GA : Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. http://www.ent.uga.edu/pmh/. Accessed February 27, 2012.Google Scholar
Gildemeister, H. and Schäfer, D. 2005. Behavior of the herbicide mesosulfuron-methyl in the environment. Pflanzenschutz-Nachr. Bayer 58 :195–214.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Bridges, D. C. 2003. Alternatives to diclofop for the control of Italian ryegrass in winter wheat. Weed Technol. 17 :219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 2011. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Lawrence, KS : Weed Science Society of America. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: May 26, 2011.Google Scholar
Hoogenboom, G. 2008. Georgia automated environmental monitoring network. Griffin, GA : University of Georgia. http://www.griffin.uga.edu./aemn/. Accessed May 25, 2011.Google Scholar
Justice, G. G. 1994. Net returns for Italian ryegrass control in winter wheat. Weed Technol. 8 :317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khodayari, K. 1985. Evaluation of chlorsulfuron in wheat and in a wheat–soybean double-cropping system. Weed Sci. 33 :746–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuk, Y. I., Burgos, N. R., and Scott, R. C. 2008. Resistance profile of diclofop-resistant Italian ryegrass to ACCase- and ALS-inhibiting herbicides in Arkansas, USA. Weed Sci. 56 :614–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuk, Y. I., Burgos, N. R., and Talbert, R. E. 2000. Cross- and multiple resistance of diclofop resistant Lolium spp. Weed Sci. 48 :412–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebl, R. and Worsham, A. D. 1987. Interference of Italian ryegrass in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35 :819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, A., Grey, T. L., and Culpepper, A. S. 2007. Oat and rye tolerance to mesosulfuron and tribenuron. Weed Technol. 21 :938–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, E. L. and Banks, P. A. 1983. The effectiveness of diclofop for control of Italian ryegrass in winter wheat. Athens, GA : College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia Research Report 428.Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, L. M., Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Beam, J. B., and MacRae, A. W. 2009. Sequential application for mesosulfuron and nitrogen needed in wheat. Weed Technol. 23 :404–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlman, P. W., Currie, R. S., and El-Hamid, M. A. 1997. Nitrogen carrier and surfactant increase foliar injury in winter wheat. Weed Technol. 11 :7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M. J., Cralle, H. T., Chandler, J. M., Miller, T. D., Bovey, R. W., and Carson, K. H. 1998. Above- and below ground interference of wheat by Italian ryegrass. Weed Sci. 46 :438–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stranger, C. E. and Appleby, A. P. 1989. Italian ryegrass accessions tolerant to diclofop. Weed Sci. 37 :350–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15 :771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar