Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:04:13.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Smooth Crabgrass Control with Indaziflam at Various Spring Timings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. T. Brosnan*
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, 252 Ellington Plant Science Building, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996
P. E. McCullough
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
G. K. Breeden
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, 252 Ellington Plant Science Building, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Indaziflam is an alkylazine herbicide that controls annual grasses by inhibiting cellulose biosynthesis. Compared with other PRE herbicides like prodiamine, indaziflam has a longer half-life in soil (> 150 d), which may allow for greater flexibility with application timing. Research was conducted in 2010 in Tennessee and Georgia evaluating smooth crabgrass control efficacy with indaziflam applied at early PRE, PRE, and early POST timings on the basis of soil temperature. Regardless of application timing, all rates of indaziflam (35, 52.5, and 70 g ai ha−1) controlled smooth crabgrass 89 to 100%. Prodiamine at 840 g ai ha−1 applied PRE provided ≥ 99% smooth crabgrass control on all rating dates. Smooth crabgrass plant counts were significantly correlated (r = −0.961; p < 0.0001) with visual ratings of smooth crabgrass control at the end of the study. Application flexibility with indaziflam may benefit turf managers in scheduling herbicide applications for smooth crabgrass control in Tennessee and Georgia.

El indaziflam es un herbicida del grupo químico alkilazine, que controla gramíneas anuales inhibiendo la biosíntesis de la celulosa. Comparado con otros herbicidas preemergentes (PRE) como prodiamina, indaziflam tiene una vida media más larga en el suelo (>150 días), lo cual quizás permita una mayor flexibilidad con el tiempo de aplicación. Una investigación se realizó en 2010 en Tennessee (TN) y Georgia (GA) para evaluar la eficacia de control de Digitaria ischaemum con indaziflam aplicado en preemergencia temprana (EPRE), PRE y postemergencia temprana (EPOST), basados en la temperatura del suelo. Indistintamente del tiempo de aplicación, todas las dosis de indaziflam (35, 52.5 y 70 g ia ha−1) controlaron Digitaria ischaemum de 89 a 100%. Prodiamina a 840 g ia ha−1 en etapa PRE proporcionó ≥99% de control en dicha maleza, en todas las fechas de evaluación. El conteo de plantas de Digitaria ischaemum estuvo significativamente correlacionado (r = −0.961; p < 0.0001) con dosis visuales de control de maleza, al final del estudio. La flexibilidad de aplicación con indaziflam, podría beneficiar a manejadores de céspedes a calendarizar las aplicaciones del herbicida para controlar Digitaria ischaemum en TN y GA.

Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
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, W. H., Cox, D. J., and Budhwar, G. 1990. Use of the arcsine and square root transformations for subjectively determined percentage data. Weed Sci. 38:452458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous, . 2008. Dimension 2EW herbicide label. Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN Publisher.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009. Barricade 4FL herbicide label. Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC Publisher.Google Scholar
Brosnan, J. T., Breeden, G. K., and Elmore, M. T. 2010a. Applications of indaziflam for control of annual grasses in warm-season turf. Proc Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 64:66.Google Scholar
Brosnan, J. T., Breeden, G. K., and McCullough, P. E. 2010b. Efficacy of dithiopyr for postemergence control of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum [Schreb.] Schreb. ex Muhl.) at various stages of growth. HortSci. 45:961965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutulle, M. A., McElroy, J. S., Millwood, R. W., Sorochan, J. C., and Stewart, C. N. 2009. Selection of bioassay method influences detection of annual bluegrass resistance to mitotic-inhibiting herbicides., 49:10881095.Google Scholar
Enache, A. J. and Ilnicki, R. D. 1991. BAS 514 and dithiopyr for weed control in cool-season turfgrasses. Weed Technol. 5:616621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fidanza, M. A., Dernoeden, P. H., and Zhang, M. 1996. Degree days for predicting smooth crabgrass emergence in cool-season turf. Crop Sci. 36:990996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. W., McCarty, L. B., and Murphy, T. R. 1994. Weed taxonomy. Pages 18. in: Turgeon, A. J., ed. Turf Weeds and Their Control. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Isgrigg, J. III., Yelverton, F. H., Brownie, C., and Warren, L. S. 2002. Dinitroaniline resistant annual bluegrass in North Carolina. Weed Sci. 50:8690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1996. Effect of reduced dithiopyr and prodiamine rates on large crabgrass (Digitaria sanuinalis) control in common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) turf. Weed Technol. 10:322326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1997. Sequential applications of preemergence and postemergence herbicides for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) turf. Weed Technol. 11:693697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, B., Murphy, T., Whitwell, T., and Yelverton, F. 2005. Turfgrass weeds. Pages 663703. In McCarty, L. B., ed. Best Golf Course Management Practices. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B. and Weinbrecht, J. S. 1997. Cynodon dactylon × Cynodon transvaalensis cv. Tifway sprigging establishment and weed control following preemergence herbicide use. Int. Turf. Soc. Res. J. 8:507515.Google Scholar
McCurdy, J. D., McElroy, J. S., Breeden, G. K., and Kopsell, D. A. 2008. Mesotrione plus prodiamine for smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) control in established bermudagrass turf. Weed Technol. 22:275279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agronomy J. 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudge, L. C., Gossett, B. J., and Murphy, T. R. 1984. Resistance of goosegrass to dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:591594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, D. F., Hanrahan, R., Michel, J., Monke, B., Mudge, L., Olsen, C., Parker, A., Smith, J., and Spak, D. 2009. Indaziflam/BCS AA170717—a new herbicide for preemergent control of grasses and broadleaves in turf and ornamentals. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 62:393.Google Scholar
Reicher, Z. J., Weisenberger, D. V., and Throssell, C. S. 1999. Turf safety and effectiveness of dithiopyr and quinclorac for large crabgrass control in spring-seeded turf. Weed Technol. 13:253256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. 2006. 9.1.3 Procedures Guide. 2nd ed., Volumes 1–4. Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 265266, 286–288.Google Scholar
Tompkins, J. 2010. Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Fact Sheet: Indaziflam. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/indaziflam.pdf. Accessed: October 10, 2010.Google Scholar
Vaughn, K. C., Vaughan, M. A., and Gossett, B. J. 1990. A biotype of goosegrass with an intermediate level of dinitroaniline herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:157162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yelverton, F. H., Hoyle, J. A., Gannon, T. W., and Warren, L. S. 2009. Plant counts, digital image analysis, and visual ratings for estimating weed control in turf: are they correlated? Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 62:399.Google Scholar