Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:01:14.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of a New Herbicide (Aminocyclopyrachlor) on Buffalograss and Forbs in Shortgrass Prairie

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Keith R. Harmoney ,
Phillip W. Stahlman ,
Patrick W. Geier  and
Robert Rupp
Keith R. Harmoney*
Affiliation:
Western Kansas Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University, Hays, KS 67601
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Western Kansas Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University, Hays, KS 67601
Patrick W. Geier
Affiliation:
Western Kansas Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University, Hays, KS 67601
Robert Rupp
Affiliation:
Dupont Crop Protection, Field Development, 5813 Sandsage Drive, Edmond, OK 73034
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides used to control many forb species in pastures may injure desirable native grass species. Buffalograss, a major component of shortgrass rangeland, often is injured by some growth regulator herbicides, such as 2,4-D and dicamba. Aminocyclopyrachlor (formerly known as DPX-MAT28 and herein termed ACPCR), a new synthetic auxin herbicide chemistry for control of broadleaf weeds, was investigated for injury to buffalograss and control of forbs in shortgrass prairie at varying rates of application. In the season of application, ACPCR at rates of 140 g ai ha−1 or less caused buffalograss injury that was either negligible or short-lived, and visual estimates of grass injury were 8% or less at the end of the growing season. At ACPCR rates of 280 g ha−1, more injury was evident at 3 wk after treatment (WAT) than at the end of the season if adequate precipitation was available for new leaf growth. When precipitation was lacking, evidence of injury persisted through to the end of the season when treated at the greatest rate of ACPCR. Buffalograss injury was mainly in the form of browned leaf tips, but total buffalograss dry matter yield was not different between any treatments in either year. The year after treatment, no buffalograss injury was evident from any of the herbicide rates. Final forb control was 97% or greater each year for ACPCR at the 140 and 280 g ha−1 rates. In this experiment, rates as low as ACPCR at 140 g ha−1 provided excellent forb control and maintained buffalograss productivity.

Los herbicidas usados en pastizales para el control de muchas especies herbáceas de hoja ancha podrían dañar especies deseables de zacates nativos. El zacate Bouteloua dactyloides, uno de los principales componentes en pastizales de zacates cortos, es dañado frecuentemente por algunos herbicidas reguladores de crecimiento. Aminocyclopyrachlor (anteriormente conocido como DPX-MAT28 y aquí nombrado como ACPCR), un nuevo herbicida del grupo químico de las auxinas sintéticas utilizado para el control de malezas de hoja ancha, fue investigado para determinar el daño que ocasiona a B. dactyloides y el control de especies herbáceas de hoja ancha en praderas de zacates cortos a diferentes dosis de aplicación. En la temporada de la aplicación, las dosis de ACPCR de 140 g ia ha−1 o menos causaron un daño insignificante o de corta duración al zacate, y las estimaciones visuales de daño fueron 8% o menos al final de la temporada. El ACPCR a dosis de 280 g ha−1, tuvo un daño más evidente a las tres semanas después del tratamiento (WAT) que al final de la temporada, cuando hubo una adecuada precipitación para el crecimiento de hojas nuevas. Cuando faltó la precipitación y se aplicó la mayor dosis de ACPCR, la evidencia del daño persistió hasta el fin de la estación. El daño al zacate B. dactyloides se manifestó principalmente como un marchitamiento en las puntas de las hojas, pero el rendimiento total de materia seca del zacate no fue diferente entre los tratamientos en ninguno de los años. El año posterior al tratamiento, no hubo daño evidente en el zacate con ninguna dosis de herbicida. El control final de las especies herbáceas de hoja ancha fue de 97% o mayor para cada año con dosis de ACPCR de 140 y 280 g ha−1. En este experimento, dosis tan bajas de ACPCR como 140 g ha−1 proporcionaron excelente control y mantuvieron la productividad del zacate B. dactyloides.

Keywords

2,4-Daminocyclopyrachlordicambabuffalograss, Bouteloua dactyloides (Nutt.) J.T. Columbus BUCDADry matter yieldinjuryrangeland
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 455 - 459
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

Clark, D. E., Young, J. E., Younger, R. L., Hunt, L. M., and McLaran, J. K. 1964. The fate of 2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in sheep. J. Agric. Food Chem. 12:43–45.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 1994. Herbicide fact sheet: dicamba. J. Pesticide Reform 14:30–35.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and McKenney, C. B. 1996. Established and seeded buffalograss tolerance to herbicides applied preemergence. Hort. Sci. 31:393–395.Google Scholar
Dupont. 2009. Dupont DPX MAT28 herbicide. Technical Bulletin K-15023. Wilmington, DE Dupont. 8 p.Google Scholar
[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chemical Fact Sheet for: Dicamba. Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs Fact Sheet number 08.Google Scholar
EPA. 2005. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D. Washington DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs Publication Number EPA 738-R-05-002. 304 p.Google Scholar
Fagerness, M. J. 2001. Weed Control in Home Lawns. Manhattan, KS Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station MF-2385. 8 p.Google Scholar
Fry, J. D. and Upham, W. S. 1994. Buffalograss seedling tolerance to postemergence herbicides. Hort. Sci. 29:1156–1157.Google Scholar
Huffman, A. H. and Jacoby, P. W. Jr. 1984. Effects of herbicides on germination and seedling development of three native grasses. J. Range Manag. 37:40–43.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B. and Colvin, D. L. 1992. Buffalograss tolerance to postemergence herbicides. Hort. Sci. 27:898–899.Google Scholar
Oehler, D. D. and Ivie, G. W. 1980. Metabolic fate of the herbicide dicamba in a lactating cow. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:685–689.Google Scholar
SAS. 1995. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6. 4th ed, Volume 2. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Timmons, F. L. 1950. Competitive relationships of four different lawn grasses with field bindweed and dandelion under frequent close clipping. Ecology 31:1–5.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture, United States Summary and State Data. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 639 p.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, A. and Johnson, P. G. 2009. Buffalograss tolerance to post-emergence herbicides in the Intermountain West. Appl. Turf. Sci. DOI:10.1094/ATS-2009-0312-01-BR.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. D., Geronimo, J., and Armbruster, J. A. 1997. 2,4-D dissipation in field soils after applications of 2,4-D dimethylamine salt and 2,4-D 2-ethylhexyl ester. Env. Toxic. Chem. 16:1239–1246.Google Scholar