Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:06:00.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Trifluralin Applied Preplant on Grass Weed Control and Establishment and Yield of Barley (Hordeum vulgare)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Julio A. Scursoni  and
Emilio H. Satorre
Julio A. Scursoni
Affiliation:
Cátedra de Cerealicultura, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Av. San Martín 4453, (1417) Buenos Aires, Argentina
Emilio H. Satorre
Affiliation:
Cátedra de Cerealicultura, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Av. San Martín 4453, (1417) Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the effect of preplant applications of trifluralin on barley stand and yield, and control of grass weeds in field experiments during 1992 and 1993. Factors examined were: (1) crop planting patterns (conventional drill with rows 15 cm apart and deep-seeder drill with rows 25 cm apart), (2) herbicide application times (22 d before sowing and immediately before sowing), and (3) herbicide application. During 1993, hand-weeded plots also were established. Trifluralin applied preplant at 528 g ai/ha reduced weed density and biomass. Weed control was higher under conventional planting than under the deep planting pattern, and there was no effect of the time of application on herbicide efficacy. There was no herbicide injury to the crop, and grain yield was higher in treated than in untreated plots due to successful weed control.

Keywords

Trifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamineItalian rye grass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. # LOLMUwild oat, Avena fatua L. # AVEFAbarley, Hordeum vulgare L.Cereal crops managementAvena fatuaLolium multiflorumAVEFALOLMU
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 515 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Anonymous. 1995. Estadísticas Agropecuarias y Pesqueras. Secretaría de Agricultura Ganadería y Pesca, Dirección de Información y Sistemas, SIIAP. 459 p.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1973. Dinitroanilines. In Mode of Action of Herbicides. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 221–235.Google Scholar
Basile, E. 1994. Utilización de Agroquímicos en 1993. Secretaría de Agricultura Ganadería y Pesca, Dirección de Produccción Agrícola, SAGyP. 12 p.Google Scholar
Billet, D. and Ashford, R. 1978. Differences in the phytotoxic response of wild oats (Avena fatua) to triallate and trifluralin. Weed Sci. 26:273–276.Google Scholar
Clay, S. A., Gaffney, J. F., and Wrage, L. J. 1995. Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar responses to trifluralin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 9:352–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, H. A. and Bowren, K. E. 1973. Factors affecting the control of wild oats in rapeseed with trifluralin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:199–205.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A. 1988. Control de Raygras (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) Malezas. Volume 16 No. 2:63–78. XI Reunión Argentina sobre la malezas y su control.Google Scholar
Hendrix, D. L. and Muench, S. R. 1969. The effects of trifluralin on barley. Plant Physiol. Abstr. 44:S–26.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. and Vigna, M. 1991. Actas XII Reunión Argentina sobre la maleza y su control 2:97–113.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. and Vigna, M. 1994. Avena fatua: Maleza de trigo y cebada. Su susceptibilidad a trifluralina. Actas del III Congreso Nacional de trigo y Primer Simposio Nacional de Cereales de siembra otoño-invernal. p. 185.Google Scholar
Mockel, F. E., Cantamutto, M. A., Pelizzaari, E. J., and Gaido, E. J. 1980. Control de “cebadilla” (Avena fatua L.) y “ray grass” (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) con Trifluralina en trigo (Triticum aestivum L.). MALEZAS, Revista de la Asoc. Argentina para el control de Malezas 8:17–25.Google Scholar
Morrison, I. N., Nawolsky, K. M., Entz, M. H., and Smith, A. E. 1991. Differences among certified wheat seedlots in response to trifluralin. Agron. J. 83:119–123.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1979. Soil organic matter, moisture and temperature: effect on wild oats control with trifluralin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:763–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., Weiss, G. H., and Friesen, D. 1985. Tolerance of spring barley to trifluralin deep incorporated in the fall or spring. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:169–177.Google Scholar
Rahman, A. and Ashford, R. 1970. Selective action of trifluralin for control of green foxtail in wheat. Weed Sci. 18:754–759.Google Scholar
Scursoni, J. 1995. Relevamiento de malezas en cultivos de cebada cervecera (Hordeum vulgare L.) en la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía de La Plata 71:235–243.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stage of cereals. Weed Res. 14:415–421.Google Scholar