Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:22:22.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth response of velvetleaf to three postemergence herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Cheryl A. Murphy  and
John L. Lindquist
Cheryl A. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0817
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge of how reduction in the rate of herbicide application or rotation of their mode of action influences weed growth will provide insight into how successful these practices will be in an integrated weed management program. Field experiments were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to quantify velvetleaf growth response to three postemergence herbicides, each with a different mode of action. A monoculture of velvetleaf was treated with halosulfuron, dicamba, and flumiclorac at 0, 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.0 × the labeled rate for weed control in corn. Percent plant mortality increased with rate of application; the greatest mortality occurred in flumiclorac treatments in 1996 and in halosulfuron and flumiclorac treatments in 1997. Growth rate temporarily decreased as application rate increased. Maximum height decreased as rate of application increased, with the dicamba treatment resulting in the greatest (27%) reduction. Early-season leaf area index decreased with increasing rate of application, the greatest reduction occurring with halosulfuron (1997) and flumiclorac (1996 and 1997) treatments. The number of leaves produced per plant was temporarily reduced by all treatments, but treatment with dicamba later resulted in larger numbers of small leaves. The number of velvetleaf seed capsules produced per surviving plant was not reduced by any treatment, but the number of capsules per square meter was reduced by the 0.5 × rate of flumiclorac (1996) and the 0.5- and 1.0 × rates of halosulfuron (1997). Research is needed to evaluate whether the temporary suspension of velvetleaf growth after herbicide treatment is sufficient to prohibit crop yield reduction and velvetleaf capsule production.

Keywords

Dicambaflumiclorachalosulfuronvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.Reduced ratesmode of actionmortalityheightleaf area indexcapsulesublethal dosecompetition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , June 2002 , pp. 364 - 369
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

Al-Khatib, K. 1996. Tulip (Tulipa spp.), daffodil (Narcissus spp.), and iris (Iris spp.) response to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:710–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Philbrook, B. D., and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Velvetleaf and giant foxtail control for solid-seeded soybean production in three tillage intensities. J. Prod. Agric. 3:302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, S. 1995. Weed suppression ability of spring barley varieties. Weed Res. 35:241–247.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rule for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Influence of weed biology and ecology on development of reduced dose strategies for integrated weed management systems. Pages 333–362 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. S. and Slife, F. W. 1978. Effects of 2,4-D and dalapon on weed seed production and dormancy. Weed Sci. 26:543–547.Google Scholar
Fielding, R. J. and Stoller, E. W. 1990. Effects of additives on the efficacy, uptake, and translocation of the methyl ester of thifensulfuron. Weed Sci. 38:172–178.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E. and Penner, D. 1993. Atrazine reduces primisulfuron transport to meristems of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 41:28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henzell, R., Phillips, J., and Diggle, P. 1985. Influence of sublethal concentrations of herbicides and growth regulators on mouseearcress (Arabidopsis thaliana) progeny. Weed Sci. 33:430–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr. and Shaw, D. R. 1996a. Effect of herbicides on ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:860–864.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr. and Shaw, D. R. 1996b. Herbicide effects on ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and soybean (Glycine max) growth and water relations. Weed Sci. 44:836–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1997. Monosodium methanearsonate influence on broadleaf weed control with selected postemergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci. 1:72–75.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1995. Evaluation of band vs. broadcast herbicide applications in corn and soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 8:380–384.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modelling Crop-weed Interactions. Wallingford, Great Britain/Manila, Philippines: CAB International/International Rice Research Institute. p. 154.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. 2001. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Knezevic, S. Z. 2001. Quantifying crop yield response to weed population: applications and limitations. Pages 205–232 In Peterson, R.K.D. and Higley, L. G., eds. Biotic Stress and Yield Loss. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, B. E. 1998. Mechanisms of corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J. 90:787–792.Google Scholar
Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Lindquist, J. L. 1998. Decision support models for weed management: in-field management tools. Pages 363–369 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–359.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2001. Weed management with sul-fentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Crop Prot. 20:215–220.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, P. A. and Kossatz, V. C. 1984. Canada thistle suppression and rapeseed tolerance with dicamba and picloram. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:971–977.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Guide for Personal Computers. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Schmenk, R. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Effect of soil-applied atrazine and pendimethalin on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competitiveness in corn. Weed Technol. 12:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, K. I. and Weaver, S. E. 1996. Response of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) to low rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 44:897–902.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5:674–679.Google Scholar
Winter, C. K. 1996. Pesticide residues in foods: recent events and emerging issues. Weed Technol. 10:969–973.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. and Cavers, P. B. 1994a. Effect of herbicide application on fruit characters of Xanthium strumarium L. populations. Weed Res. 34:319–326.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. and Cavers, P. B. 1994b. Seedling emergence after maternal bentazon application to 10 common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) populations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:863–866.Google Scholar