Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-jhxnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:34:21.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utility of Maintained Weed Infestations Under Field Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. P. Upchurch ,
F. L. Selman  and
H. L. Webster
R. P. Upchurch
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University
F. L. Selman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University
H. L. Webster
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relatively pure stands of eight weed species were maintained under field conditions on a Goldsboro loamy sand at Lewiston, North Carolina, for all or part of a 6-year period. Herbicides evaluated as preemergence surface treatments for these species were 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (dinoseb), isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate (chloropropham), 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethyl-urea (diuron), 2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine (simazine), and 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (amiben). S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) and a,a,a-trifluro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) were evaluated as preemergence incorporated treatments. The first four herbicides were evaluated in 1961, 1964, and 1966 while the last three were evaluated in 1962, 1963, and 1965. A series of rates was used for each chemical with three replications. With the exception of diuron which failed to control goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.), all of the herbicides provided at least a moderate degree of control of goosegrass, smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Muhl.), and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) at the respective typical field use rates. In general, trifluralin and amiben gave the best grass control and dinoseb the poorest. None of the herbicides effectively controlled common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr.) or ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.). Trifluralin and EPTC did not control Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). Chloropropham was ineffective on common ragweed. Simazine, chloropropham, and amiben controlled Pennsylvania smartweed while diuron, simazine, dinoseb, and amiben were especially effective on common lambsquarters. Distinctive patterns of nematode infestations were observed as a function of weed species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , March 1970 , pp. 206 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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. Andersen, R. N. 1968. Evaluating herbicides in a soybean-weed nursery. Proc. North Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 23: 29–30.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1964. Influence of tillage, row spacing, and atrazine on sorghum and weed yields from nonirrigated sorghum across Nebraska. Weeds 12:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1964. Cultivation and herbicide treatments of dryland sorghum. Weeds 12:307–310.Google Scholar
4. Frank, R. 1967. Pyrazon, a selective herbicide for sugar beets. Weeds 15:197–201.Google Scholar
5. Harris, V. C. 1960. Weed control in cotton over a ten-year period by use of the more promising materials and techniques. Weeds 8:616–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W., Shaw, W. C., Harrison, H. F., and Parham, S. A. 1962. Herbicides and herbicide mixtures for weed control in peanuts. Weeds 10:139–144.Google Scholar
7. Hay, J. R. 1961. Preemergence weed control in soybeans with mixtures of two herbicides. Weeds 9:117–123.Google Scholar
8. Holstun, J. T. Jr., Wooten, O. B. Jr., McWhorter, C. G., and Crowe, G. B. 1960. Weed control practices, labor requirements and costs in cotton production. Weeds 8:232–243.Google Scholar
9. Holstun, J. T. Jr., and McWhorter, C. G. 1961. Methods of evaluating preemergence herbicides for cotton. Weeds 9:527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Indyk, H. W. 1957. Preemergence weed control in soybeans. Weeds 5:363–370.Google Scholar
11. Kempen, H. M., Miller, J. H., and Carter, L. M. 1963. Preemergence herbicides incorporated in moist soils for control of annual grass in irrigated cotton. Weeds 11:300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. McWhorter, C. G. 1966. Sesbania control in soybeans with 2,4-D wax bars. Weeds 14:152–155.Google Scholar
13. Parker, M. W. 1960. Research and organizational needs in the field of weed control. Weeds 8:556–560.Google Scholar
14. Peacock, J. F., Burnside, O. C., Lavy, T. L., Hanway, D. G., and Kittock, D. L. 1965. Flaming, intertillage, and chemical weed control in castorbeans. Weeds 13:290–292.Google Scholar
15. Peters, E. J., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449–458.Google Scholar
16. Powell, W. M. and Nusbaum, C. J. 1963. Investigations on the estimation of plant parasitic nematode populations for advisory purposes. North Carolina Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 156. 22 p.Google Scholar
17. Selman, F. L. and Upchurch, R. P. 1965. The influence of seven herbicides on pure stands of six problem weed species. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 18:55. (Abstr.).Google Scholar
18. Shaw, W. C. 1964. Weed Science—Revolution in agricultural technology. Weeds 12:153–162.Google Scholar
19. Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14:49–51.Google Scholar