Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:58:14.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leaf Extension Rate May Help Determine When Low Wild Oat Herbicide Rates Will Be Effective1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Neil Harker  and
Robert E. Blackshaw
K. Neil Harker*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C & E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada T4L 1W1
Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Determination of the active growth state of weeds may lead to more reliable predictions of herbicide efficacy. Experiments were conducted at Lacombe and Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, from 1996 to 1998 to determine if wild oat leaf extension (growth) rate could be used to predict the efficacy of imazamethabenz and ICIA 0604. As expected, wild oat control increased and wild oat biomass decreased with increasing imazamethabenz and ICIA 0604 rates. Mean wild oat growth rates ranged from 6 to 44 mm over a 24-h time interval. Wild oat control at 25% of the recommended doses of ICIA 0604 or imazamethabenz increased as wild oat growth rate increased. However, wild oat growth rate did not influence herbicide efficacy at higher herbicide rates. Regression analysis confirmed that wild oat control at the lowest application rates increased 6 or 14% for every 10 mm of wild oat growth during the 24 h preceding herbicide application of ICIA 0604 or imazamethabenz, respectively. Covariance analysis confirmed the influence of wild oat growth rate on wild oat control by imazamethabenz but not by ICIA 0604. Monocot leaf extension rates may be useful for predicting herbicide efficacy in integrated weed management or decision support systems.

Keywords

ICIA 0604, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-cyclohex-2-enone (proposed common name: tralkoxydim)imazamethabenzwild oat, Avena fatua L. #3 AVEFAActive growthintegrated weed managementpredicting efficacyreduced rates
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 829 - 835
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

Akesson, N. B. and Yates, W. E. 1987. Effect of weather factors on the application of herbicides. in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides, WSSA Monograph 4. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 335–344.Google Scholar
Ali, S. 2002. Crop Protection 2002. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Information Packaging Centre. 500 p.Google Scholar
Andrews, M. 1990. Diclofop-methyl antagonism by broadleaf weed herbicides: the importance of leaf expansion rate. Weed Res. 30:331–340.Google Scholar
Barton, D. L., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Integrated wild oat (Avena fatua) management affects spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) yield and economics. Weed Technol. 6:129–135.Google Scholar
Belles, D. S., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 2000. PP-604 and Avena fatua density effects on seed production and viability in Hordeum vulgare . Weed Sci. 48:378–384.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1988. The Influence of Environmental Variables on Herbicide Efficacy: A Long-Term Study. Final Report. Edmonton, Canada: Department of Agricultural, Food, and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta. 72 p.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci 52:921–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunan, C. M. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Competitive ability of wild oats (Avena fatua) and barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Sci. 39:558–563.Google Scholar
Evans, R. M., Thill, D. C., Tapia, L., Shafii, B., and Lish, J. M. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) density affect spring barley grain yield. Weed Technol. 5:33–39.Google Scholar
Incledon, B. J. and Hall, J. C. 1997. Acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase: quaternary structure and inhibition by graminicidal herbicides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 57:255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kells, J. J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci. 32:143–149.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Weed management in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) in the absence of herbicides. J. Sustain. Agric 3:95–104.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J., Holm, F. A., and Stevenson, F. C. 2000. Appropriate crop seeding rate when herbicide rate is reduced. Weed Technol. 14:692–698.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Kristensen, J. L. 1992. Effect of environmental factors on herbicide performance. in Combellak, J.H., ed. Proceedings of the 1st International Weed Control Congress; Melbourne, Australia. Pp. 173–186.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 656 p.Google Scholar
Medd, R. W., Van De Den, R. J., Pickering, D. I., and Nordblom, T. 2001. Determination of environment-specific dose-response relationships for clodinafop-propargyl on Avena spp. Weed Res. 41:351–368.Google Scholar
Muzik, T. J. 1976. Influence of environmental factors on toxicity to plants. in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides—Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. Volume 2. London: Academic. Pp. 203–247.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Skrzypczak, G. 1985. Environment and bromoxynil phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 34:101–105.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. 1988. Wild oat infestations and economic returns as influenced by frequency of control. Weed Technol. 2:495–498.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Hall, L. M. 2000. Wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in barley (Hordeum vulgare) is influenced by barley variety and seeding rate. Weed Technol. 14:624–629.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Newman, J. C., Robinson, D., and Hall, L. M. 2001. Barley seeding rate influences the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci. 49:746–754.Google Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32:483–491.Google Scholar
Sharma, M. P. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1983. Crop competition aids efficacy of wild oat herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci 63:503–507.Google Scholar
Spandl, E., Durgan, B. R., and Miller, D. W. 1997. Wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:591–597.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone-acetohydroxyacid synthase interactions. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinine Herbicides. Boca Raton FL: CRC. Pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Maxwell, B. D., and Harris, J. D. 1997. Influence of application timing and the efficacy of reduced rate postemergence herbicides for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Technol. 11:283–289.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Wille, M. J., Thill, D. C., and Price, W. J. 1998. Wild oat (Avena fatua) seed production in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) is affected by the interaction of wild oat density and herbicide rate. Weed Sci. 46:336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1984. Toxicity and translocation of sethoxydim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) as affected by environment. Weed Sci. 32:20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1997. Effect on environment on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with imazamethabenz or fenoxaprop tank-mixed with additives or MCPA. J. Plant Growth Regul 16:63–67.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol. 14:106–115.Google Scholar