Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:06:05.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applications of Metribuzin for the Control of Rigid Brome (Bromus rigidus) in No-Till Barley Crops of Southern Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Samuel G.L. Kleemann  and
Gurjeet S. Gill
Samuel G.L. Kleemann*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food & Wine, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, South Australia, Australia 5371
Gurjeet S. Gill
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food & Wine, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, South Australia, Australia 5371
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Warooka and Rudall on the Yorke and Eyre Peninsula of South Australia during 2004 and 2005 to investigate the effectiveness of metribuzin for the selective control of rigid brome in no-till sown barley. Metribuzin (135 to 203 g ai/ha) incorporated by sowing (IBS) was more effective in controlling rigid brome (> 67%) than the same herbicide dose applied POST. Although IBS metribuzin at the highest rate (270 g/ha) provided effective weed control (82 to 90%), it was more phytotoxic to barley, reducing crop density by 23% relative to the nontreated control at Rudall. Soil at Rudall had low clay and organic matter content. In contrast, tank mixtures of metribuzin (203 g/ha) with pendimethalin, applied IBS, provided reliable rigid brome control (89 to 93%) and resulted in little crop damage (< 5%). Over the site-by-year combinations studied, all herbicide-treated barley at Warooka and Rudall yielded 6 to 50% more grain than the nontreated crop. Although metribuzin provides growers with an opportunity to selectively control rigid brome in no-till barley, high rates (≥ 203 g/ha) of this herbicide on sandy textured soils can result in significant crop damage.

Keywords

Metribuzinrigid brome, Bromus rigidus Roth BRORIbarley, Hordeum vulgare L.Trifluralinpendimethalinherbicide applicationherbicide timingno-tillyield
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 34 - 37
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

Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Efficacy of downy brome herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:177–183.Google Scholar
Boutsalis, P. and Preston, C. 2006. Resistance to acetyl-Coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase)-inhibiting herbicides in Bromus spp. in Australia. Pages 538–540. in. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, Australia Weed Management Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
D'Emden, F. H. and Llewellyn, R. S. 2004. No-till adoption and the weed management challenge. Pages 597–600. in. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia Weed Society of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., and Stark, J. C. 1986. Metribuzin absorption and translocation in two barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars. Weed Sci. 34:491–495.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee 1993. Genstat 5, Release 3, Reference Manual. Oxford, Great Britain Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gill, G. S. and Bowran, D. G. 1990. Tolerance of wheat cultivars to metribuzin and implications for the control of Bromus diandrus and B. rigidus in Western Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 30:373–378.Google Scholar
Gill, G. S. and Carstairs, S. A. 1988. Morphological, cytological and ecological discrimination of Bromus rigidus from Bromus diandrus . Weed Res. 28:399–405.Google Scholar
Gill, G. S., Poole, M. L., and Holmes, J. E. 1987. Competition between wheat and brome grass in Western Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 27:291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardcastle, W. S. 1974. Differences in the tolerance of metribuzin by varieties of soybeans. Weed Res. 14:181–184.Google Scholar
Kleemann, S. G. L. and Gill, G. S. 2006. Differences in the distribution and seed germination behaviour of populations of Bromus rigidus and Bromus diandrus in South Australia: adaptations to habitat and implications for weed management. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 57:213–219.Google Scholar
Kon, K. F. and Blacklow, W. M. 1988a. Bromus diandrus Roth and B. rigidus Roth. Pages 13–27. in Groves, R., Shepherd, R., and Richardson, R., editors. The Biology of Australian Weeds. Volume 1. Melbourne, Australia R. G. and F. J. Richardson.Google Scholar
Kon, K. F. and Blacklow, W. M. 1988b. Identification, distribution and population variability of great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth) and rigid brome (Bromus rigidus Roth). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 39:1039–1050.Google Scholar
Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil. Weed Sci. 24:505–507.Google Scholar
Matic, R. and Black, I. D. 1990. Control of rigid brome (Bromus rigidus) in barley using tillage, trifluralin and metribuzin. Pages 49–52. in. Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, Australia Crop Science Society of SA/Council of Australian Weed Science Societies.Google Scholar
Peeper, T. F. 1984. Chemical and biological control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in wheat and alfalfa in North America. Weed Sci. 32:18–24.Google Scholar
Ratliff, R. L., Carver, B. F., and Peeper, T. F. 1991. Expression of metribuzin sensitivity in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) populations. Weed Sci. 39:130–133.Google Scholar
Runyan, T. J., McNeil, W. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 34:66–69.Google Scholar
Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar