Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:54:17.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Bermudagrass (Cynodon Spp.) to CGA 163935

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

B. Jack Johnson
B. Jack Johnson*
Affiliation:
Univ. Georgia, Georgia Stn., Griffin, GA 38223-1797
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

CGA 163935 was evaluated for its growth regulating effect on common bermudagrass for two years and ‘Tifway’ bermudagrass for four years. The vegetative growth of mowed common bermudagrass was suppressed for 5 wk when CGA 163935 was applied at 0.2 kg ha–1 followed by 0.1 kg ha–1 2 wk later and mowed Tifway bermudagrass was suppressed for 4 wk after application of 0.2 kg ha–1. CGA 163935 suppressed vegetative growth of non-mowed common bermudagrass for 9 wk and non-mowed Tifway bermudagrass for 2 to 8 wk at the same rates. Common bermudagrass tolerated CGA 163935 when applied initially at 0.2 kg ha–1 and followed by 0.1 kg ha–1 at a 2-wk interval for a total 0.3 kg ha–1 rate. However, common bermudagrass was severely injured (> 30%) when CGA 163935 was applied at 0.2 kg ha–1 in each of two applications for a total rate of 0.4 kg ha–1. Tifway bermudagrass tolerated CGA 163935 when applied at 0.2 kg ha–1 as a single application or when the 0.2 kg ha–1 was followed by 0.1 kg ha–1 at a 4-wk interval. Tifway bermudagrass was severely injured (> 30%) when CGA 163935 was applied at 0.4 kg ha–1 as a single application or when 0.2 kg ha–1 was followed by 0.1 kg ha–1 at 2- or 3-wk interval. Seedheads were suppressed in common bermudagrass for 1 to 2 wk with CGA 163935 at 0.4 kg ha–1.

Keywords

CGA 163935, 4(cyclopropyl-α-hydroxy-methylene)-3,5-dioxocyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethylestercommon bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. ♯ CYNDA‘Tifway’ bermudagrass, C. transvaalensis Burtt-Davy ♯ CYNTR × C. dactylon (L.) Pers. ♯ CYNDASeedhead suppressionturf injuryturf densityvegetative growth suppressionCYNDACYNTR
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 577 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the 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. Batten, S. M. 1983. Growth regulators—new tools for the ‘80’s? USGA Green Sect. 21(3):1–3.Google Scholar
2. Christians, N. E. 1985. Response of Kentucky bluegrass to four growth retardants. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. 110:765–769.Google Scholar
3. DiPaola, J. M., Gilbert, W. B., and Lewis, W. M. 1985. Turfgrass response to growth retardants. Fact Sheet. Fla. Turf Digest 2(1).Google Scholar
4. Johnson, B. J. 1992. Response of centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiuroides) to plant growth regulators. Weed Technol. 6:113–118.Google Scholar
5. Johnson, B. J. 1990. Response of bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) cultivars to multiple plant growth regulator treatments. Weed Technol. 4: 549–554.Google Scholar
6. Johnson, B. J. 1990. Response of bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) to plant growth regulators. Weed Technol. 4:895–899.Google Scholar
7. Johnson, B. J. 1989. Response of bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) to plant growth regulators. Weed Technol. 3:440–444.Google Scholar
8. Johnson, B. J. 1988. Influence of nitrogen on the response of ‘Tifway’ bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) to flurprimidol. Weed Technol. 2: 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. SAS Institute. 1982. SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar