Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:35:48.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bromus Control in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) with the Ethylthio Analog of Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Randall L. Ratliff  and
Thomas F. Peeper
Randall L. Ratliff
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Thomas F. Peeper
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twenty field experiments were conducted in Oklahoma from 1983 through 1986 to evaluate the ethylthio analog of metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(ethylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] for selective control of cheat (Bromus secalinus L. #3 BROSE), downy brome (Bromus tectorum L. # BROTE), and rescuegrass (Bromus catharticus Vahl. # BROCA) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The ethylthio analog of metribuzin applied postemergence at 1.1 kg ai/ha before the weeds tillered controlled 91 to 100% of these Bromus spp. in winter wheat. Control of tillered Bromus spp. was less consistent. As Bromus spp. control increased, wheat yields increased, and dockage decreased. The herbicide was selective on wheat over a wide range of soils, including sands. Adding surfactant to very early postemergence applications of 0.6 kg ai/ha increased cheat control but injured wheat slightly. Surfactant use had little or no effect on dockage reduction and yields.

Keywords

BAY SMY 1500DPX R 7910as-triazineBROSEBROTEBROCA.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 235 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Bowden, B. A., and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7:349–359.Google Scholar
2. Hayes, R. M. 1986. Chemical and physical properties of new herbicides. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:116.Google Scholar
3. McNamara, D. W. 1976. Wild oat density and the duration of wild oat competition as it influences wheat growth and yield. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 16:402–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Runyan, T. J., McNeil, W. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:94–97.Google Scholar
5. Shaw, D. R., Peeper, T. F., and Westerman, R. L. 1986. Persistence of phytotoxicity of metribuzin and its ethylthio analog. Weed Sci. 34:409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook. 5th ed. Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
7. Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14:415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar