Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T20:01:59.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron on Wirestem Muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) in No-Till Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Vijay K. Nandula ,
William S. Curran ,
Gregory W. Roth  and
Nathan L. Hartwig
Vijay K. Nandula
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
William S. Curran
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Gregory W. Roth
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Nathan L. Hartwig
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1992 and 1993 to evaluate wirestem muhly control in no-till corn with application of glyphosate, nicosulfuron, and primisulfuron. Glyphosate was applied preplant at 1.1 kg ai/ha. Nicosulfuron and primisulfuron were applied at 0.018, 0.036, and 0.072 kg ai/ha and 0.020, 0.040, and 0.080 kg ai/ha, respectively, at four postemergence timings that included a split application. Similar experiments were conducted with wirestem muhly grown from rhizomes and seed in the greenhouse. Glyphosate was the most effective herbicide in the greenhouse, providing at least 96% control. However, preplant application of glyphosate in the field was ineffective in controlling wirestem muhly. On average, nicosulfuron and primisulfuron never exceeded 72% control of wirestem muhly in the greenhouse or in the field. Nicosulfuron was generally more effective than primisulfuron. Control with split application timings was more uniform over a 12-wk period than single applications and late postemergence applications were often too slow acting to affect wirestem muhly growth. Although neither nicosulfuron nor primisulfuron controls wirestem muhly, both can provide suppression of this weed where other alternatives do not exist.

Keywords

Glyphosate, [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine]nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidwirestem muhly, Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir.) Fern. # MUHFRcorn, Zea mays L.Application timingno-tillperennial grassglyphosate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 331 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Alcantara, E. N., Wyse, D. L., and Spitzmueller, J. M. 1989. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotype response to sethoxydim and haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 37:107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1994. Accent herbicide specimen label. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE 19898.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1994. Beacon herbicide product label. Ciba Plant Protection, Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC 27419.Google Scholar
4. Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1992. Selective postemergence quackgrass control in corn—a two year summary. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 32:12.Google Scholar
5. Curran, W. S., Werner, E. L., and Hartwig, N. L. 1994. Effectiveness of herbicides and tillage on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays) . Weed Technol. 8:324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Czapar, G. F. and Fawcett, R. S. 1987. Wirestem muhly. North Cent. Regional Ext. Pub. 260. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.Google Scholar
7. Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1990. Johnsongrass control with DPX-V9360 and CGA-136872 in corn (Zea mays) in Virginia. Weed Technol. 4:616–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hicks, C. P. and Jordan, T. N. 1984. Response of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), quackgrass (Agropyron repens), and wirestem muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) to postemergence grass herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Ivany, J. A. 1978. Effects of quackgrass competition on silage corn yield. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 58:539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Knievel, D. P. 1973. Procedure for estimating ratio of live to dead root matter in root core samples. Crop Sci. 13:124–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Lanini, W. T. 1985. Wirestem muhly control in relation to timing and management. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:28.Google Scholar
12. Obrigawitch, T. T., Kenyon, W. H., and Kuratle, H. 1990. Effect of application timing on rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with DPX-V9360. Weed Sci. 38:45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Roberts, L. W. 1951. Survey of factors responsible for reduction of 2,3,5 triphenyltetrazolium chloride in plant meristems. Science 113:692–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Wyse, D. L. 1976. Quackgrass control in field crops. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 31:152–153.Google Scholar