Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:56:38.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Western Snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) Control with Aminopyralid and Metsulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gustavo M. Sbatella*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Byron Sleugh
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN 46268
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The use of aminopyralid combined with metsulfuron for western snowberry control was evaluated with field trials conducted near Rushville, NE. Herbicides treatments consisted of aminopyralid plus metsulfuron, aminopyralid plus metsulfuron plus 2,4-D, 2,4-D alone, and metsulfuron plus chlorsulfuron plus 2,4-D plus dicamba. All treatments were applied in May and June. Sixty days after treatment (DAT) western snowberry control with aminopyralid plus metsulfuron at 0.073 + 0.012 kg ai ha−1 applied in May was 64%, whereas when applied in June, control was 97%. Meanwhile control with 2,4-D was 99 and 78% for the May and June applications, respectively. No major differences between application timings were observed 60 DAT for the rest of the treatments, with control levels ranging from 85 to 99%. One year after application, differences in control between application timings only persisted for 2,4-D. At 365 DAT, western snowberry control with aminopyralid plus metsulfuron at 0.073 + 0.012 kg ai ha−1 was 76 and 78% for May and June applications, respectively. The addition of 2,4-D at 1.1 kg ai ha−1 to aminopyralid plus metsulfuron provided excellent control and was similar to the combination of metsulfuron, chlorsulfuron, 2,4-D, and dicamba for both May and June applications. Grass production and animal carrying capacity were higher after western snowberry control with the majority of the treatments. Aminopyralid plus metsulfuron applied at the lower rate was the exception. The increase in the carrying capacity after western snowberry control ranged from 2.2 to 4.5 animal unit month (AUM). The control of western snowberry resulted in an increase in net income per hectare when compared with the untreated checks, ranging from $4 to $47.9 ha−1. Several options are available for effective western snowberry control during a broader time of application with increased grass production.

Con estudios de campo, se evaluó el uso de aminopyralid combinado con metsulfurón para el control de Symphoricarpos occidentalis cerca de Rushville, NE. Los tratamientos de herbicida consistieron en aminopyralid + metsulfurón, aminopyralid + metsulfurón + 2,4-D, 2,4-D solo y metsulfurón + clorsulfurón + 2,4-D + dicamba. Todos los tratamientos se aplicaron en mayo y junio. Sesenta días después del tratamiento (DAT), el control de S. occidentalis con aminopyralid + metsulfurón a 0.073 kg ia ha−1 + 0.012 kg ia ha−1 aplicado en mayo fue 64%, mientras que cuando se aplicó en junio el control fue 97%. Entre tanto, el control con 2,4-D fue 99 y 78% para las aplicaciones de mayo y junio. Para el resto de los tratamientos, a 60 DAT no se observaron importantes diferencias entre los tiempos de aplicación, con niveles de control que variaron de 85 a 99%. Un año después de la aplicación, las diferencias en el control entre los tiempos de aplicación solamente persistieron para 2,4-D. A 365 DAT el control de S. occidentalis con aminopyralid + metsulfurón a 0.073 kg ia ha−1 + 0.012 kg ia ha−1 fue 76 y 78% para las aplicaciones de mayo y junio. La adición de 2,4-D en dosis de 1.1 kg ia ha−1 a aminopyralid + metsulfurón, proporcionó excelente control y fue similar a la combinación de metsulfurón, clorsulfurón, 2,4-D y dicamba, tanto para las aplicaciones de mayo como para las de junio. La producción de pasto y la capacidad de carga animal fueron mayores después del control de S. occidentalis con la mayoría de los tratamientos. Aminopyralid + metsulfurón aplicados en la dosis más baja fueron la excepción. El incremento en la capacidad de carga, después de haber controlado el S. occidentalis, varió de 2.2 a 4.5 unidades animal mensual (AUM). Cuando se comparó con el testigo sin tratar, el control de esta maleza resultó en un incremento en el ingreso neto que varió de $4 a $47.9 USD por hectárea. Para el control efectivo de S. occidentalis, varias opciones se encuentran disponibles en un tiempo más amplio de aplicación, con una mayor producción de pasto.

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

Adams, B. W. and Bailey, A. W. 1983. Effects of mowing on energy reserves of western snowberry. Agric. For. Bull. Spec. Issue 7275.Google Scholar
Bowes, G. G. and Spurr, D. T. 1995. Improve forage production following western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook.) control with metsulfuron methyl. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:935940.Google Scholar
Cornhusker Economics. 2010. Cropland values rise while rangeland values fall. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension. http://agecon.unl.edu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=7153646b-5cc3-4692-bd7d-e79f2a5b9eb2&groupId=2369805 Accessed: November 24, 2010.Google Scholar
Douglas Jose, H. and Bek, Paige. 2010. 2010 Nebraska farm custom rates—part I. http://agecon.unl.edu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=60422c9e-670f-4895-bb09-4f58d6ae4e1a&groupId=2369805. Accessed: November 24, 2010.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Aminopyralid Fact Sheet. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/aminopyralid.pdf. Accessed: September 28, 2010.Google Scholar
Ferrell, M. A. 1992. Control of Western Snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook.) with Metsulfuron. Western Society of Weed Science-Research Progress Report. Pp. 176.Google Scholar
Frost, B. and Ruyle, G. B. 1993. Range Management Terms and Definitions. Rangeland Management. http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/rmg/1%20rangelandmanagement/4%20rangemanagterms93.pdf. Accessed: May 2, 2011.Google Scholar
Manske, L. L. 2006a. Effective management of western snowberry. In Management of Western Snowberry aka Wolfberry and Buckbrush. http://www.grazinghandbook.com/bin/4009.pdf. Accessed: September 28, 2010.Google Scholar
Manske, L. L. 2006b. Burning management of western snowberry. In Management of Western Snowberry aka Wolfberry and Buckbrush. http://www.grazinghandbook.com/bin/4009.pdf. Accessed: September 28, 2010.Google Scholar
McCarty, M. K. 1967. Control of western snowberry in Nebraska. Weeds 15:130133.Google Scholar
Pelton, J. 1953. Studies on the life-history of Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook, in Minnesota. Ecol Monogr. 23:1739.Google Scholar
Romo, J. T., Grilz, P. L., Redmann, R. E., and Driver, E. A. 1993. Standing crop, biomass allocation patterns and soil–plant water relations in Symphoricarpos occidentalis Hook. following autumn or spring burning. Am. Midl, Nat. 130:106115.Google Scholar
University of Nebraska. 2010. 2010 Guide for Weed Management in Nebraska. Lincoln University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC-130-D. 177 p.Google Scholar