Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:09:57.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Glyphosate Spray Coverage on Control of Pitted Morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clifford H. Koger ,
Daniel H. Poston  and
Krishna N. Reddy
Clifford H. Koger*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Southern Weed Science Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Daniel H. Poston
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Southern Weed Science Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to investigate the effect of glyphosate rate and degree of glyphosate spray coverage on pitted morningglory control. Pitted morningglory in the two-, four-, and six-leaf growth stages were treated with the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate at 0.28, 0.56, 0.84, 1.12, 1.40, and 1.68 kg ai/ha. Two- and four-leaf plants were controlled 98% with 1.68 kg/ha glyphosate, whereas six-leaf plants were controlled 68%. Control of two-, four-, and six-leaf plants with the commonly used field rate of 1.12 kg/ha was 68, 60, and 50%, respectively. In a separate greenhouse study, four-leaf pitted morningglory plants with 0, 33, 66, or 100% of their total leaf area exposed to herbicide spray were treated with 0.84, 1.68, or 3.36 kg/ha glyphosate. Increasing glyphosate rate from 0.84 to 3.36 kg/ha increased control from 36 to 88%. In contrast, increasing percent leaf exposure to glyphosate from 0 to 100% increased control from 57 to 75%. Increasing glyphosate rate from 0.84 to 1.68 kg/ha always improved control. However, increasing glyphosate rate from 1.68 to 3.36 kg/ha was beneficial only when no leaves were exposed to the spray solution. In the field, glyphosate spray coverage decreased from 85 to 40% as plant density increased from 1 to 32 plants/m2. However, control decreased only 11% (90 to 79%) between the highest and lowest levels of glyphosate spray coverage. These results demonstrated that inadequate control of pitted morningglory with glyphosate was more related to tolerance than glyphosate spray coverage. Glyphosate rates higher than 1.68 kg/ha may be beneficial when spray coverage is severely limited or when plants are beyond the four-leaf growth stage.

Keywords

Glyphosatepitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. #3 IPOLABiomass reductionherbicide efficacyherbicide toleranceplant densityplant populationLAI, leaf area indexPAR, photosynthetically active radiationWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 124 - 130
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

Anonymous. 1995. Weed survey—southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 48:290–305.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Weed survey—southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:299–313.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Weed survey—southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, C. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control with glyphosate and 2,4-DB mixtures in glyphosate- resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:56–61.Google Scholar
Dewey, S. A. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. A comparison between glyphosate and assimilate translocation patterns in tall morningglory (Ipomoea purpurea). Weed Sci. 31:308–314.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) in ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci. 36:345–353.Google Scholar
Howe, O. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci. 35:185–193.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1995. Effect of bud vs. rosette growth stage on translocation of 14C-glyphosate in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 43:347–351.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Banks, P. A., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Shade development effects on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 34:711–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Effect of irrigation, soybean (Glycine max) density, and glyphosate on hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybean. Weed Technol. 16:7–17.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol. 15:725–731.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46:652–660.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, J. H., Yerkes, C. N., DeGennaro, F. P., and Weller, S. C. 1997. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in tolerant and susceptible biotypes of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 45:658–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar