Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:25:57.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Control in Processing Peas (Pisum sativum) and Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gregory R. Mcnevin  and
R. Gordon Harvey
Gregory R. Mcnevin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
R. Gordon Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies in 1978 and 1979 evaluated the effectiveness of single and combination herbicide treatments in processing peas (Pisum sativum L.) and soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] for the control of wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Eight treatments that included dinitroaniline herbicides controlled wild proso millet adequately through the entire growing season of the early-planted peas (approximately 60 days). Wild proso millet emergence and growth in untreated peas was suppressed by the early emergence, rapid growth, and high plant density of the drill-planted crop. Trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) at 0.8 kg/ha stunted pea growth and was the only treatment that reduced yields significantly. No herbicide treatment evaluated in soybeans controlled wild proso millet adequately for the entire growing season without reducing soybean growth and yield. Treatments containing dinitroaniline herbicides, which controlled wild proso millet in peas and resulted in good yield, did not perform similarly in soybeans.

Keywords

Interferencedinitroanilineacetanilide
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , July 1982 , pp. 365 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Curtis, J. J., Brandon, J. F., and Robertson, D. W. 1937. Proso or hog millet. Colo. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 438. 16 pp.Google Scholar
2. Downton, J., Berry, J., and Tregunna, E. B. 1969. Photosynthesis: Temperate and tropical characteristics within a single genus. Science 163:78–79.Google Scholar
3. Downton, J. and Tregunna, E. B. 1968. Carbon dioxide compensation—its relation to photosynthetic carboxylation reactions, systematics of the Graminae, and leaf anatomy. Can. J. Bot. 46:207–215.Google Scholar
4. Grabouski, P. H. 1971. Selective control of weeds in proso millet with herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:207–209.Google Scholar
5. Gritton, E. T. and Eastin, J. A. 1968. Response of peas (Pisum sativum) to plant population and spacing. Agron. J. 60:482–485.Google Scholar
6. Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: Wild proso millet. Crops and Soils. 31:10–13.Google Scholar
7. Marx, G. A. and Hagedorn, D. J. 1961. Plant population and weed growth relations in canning peas. Weeds. 9:494–496.Google Scholar
8. McNevin, G. R. and Harvey, R. G. 1980. Wild proso millet control in sweet corn study. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 37:5.Google Scholar
9. McNevin, G. R. and Harvey, R. G. 1980. Wild proso millet in sod-planted corn. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 37:263.Google Scholar
10. McNevin, G. R. and Harvey, R. G. 1980. Wild proso millet control in field corn. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 37:266–267.Google Scholar
11. Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
12. Shantz, H. L. and Piemeisel, L. N. 1927. The water requirements of plants at Akron, Colorado. J. Agric. Res. 34:1093–1189.Google Scholar
13. Warnes, D. D., Behrens, R., and Elakkad, M. A. 1980. Wild proso millet control with repeated annual thiocarbamate treatments. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 37:216–217.Google Scholar