Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:44:07.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazethapyr and Imazaquin Control Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) but Carry Over to Spinach (Spinacia oleracea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David H. Johnson  and
Ronald E. Talbert
David H. Johnson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The control of puncturevine in southern peas with imazethapyr and imazaquin and the potential for carryover of these herbicides to spinach was evaluated in Arkansas. Imazethapyr (0.07 kg ai ha−1) and imazaquin (0.14 kg ha−1) applied to southern peas either PPI tank-mixed with trifluralin (0.84 kg ha−1) or PRE or POST following trifluralin controlled puncturevine at least 70%. Imazaquin and imazethapyr remaining in soil after use caused injury and yield reduction to spinach planted 3 to 4 mo after herbicide application in the fall after southern pea harvest. In spring spinach planted 8 to 9 mo after herbicide application, the only injury observed was from soil residues of imazethapyr applied POST in one of two years, with no yield reduction. In rate by timing experiments, imazethapyr at 0.07 kg ha−1 applied PPI, PRE, and 3 and 6 d after puncturevine emergence controlled puncturevine at least 95% at the 2-wk rating. At the 4-wk rating, imazethapyr at 0.07 kg ha−1 applied PRE provided this level of control. Imazaquin at 0.07 and 0.14 kg ha−1 controlled puncturevine greater than 93% when applied up to 12 d after emergence. Puncturevine control was less with both herbicides at lower rates and as application timing increased.

Keywords

Imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidtrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminepuncturevine, Tribulus terrestris L. # TRBTEsouthern pea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpersspinach, Spinacia oleracea L.Application timingcarryoverbentazonclomazonefomesafenmetolachlortrifluralinAmaranthus albusAmaranthus palmeriDigitaria sanguinalisEriochloa gracilisMollugo verticillataAMAALAMAPADIGSAERBGRMOLVETRBTE
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 79 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:820–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Chenault, E. W., Wiese, A. F., and Harman, W. L. 1986. An economic analysis of incorporation methods for preplant herbicides on clay loam soil. Weed Sci. 34:419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Congleton, W. F., Vancantfort, A. M., and Lignowski, E. M. 1987. Imazaquin (Scepter)®: A new soybean herbicide. Weed Technol. 1: 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burwood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybean development. Crop Sci. 11:929–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Goeden, R. D. and Ricker, D. W. 1973. A soil profile analysis for puncturevine fruit and seed. Weed Sci. 21:504–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Guethle, D. R., Sims, B. D., Baysinger, J. A., and Avery, D. A. 1990. Puncturevine control in southern peas with Pursuit. Abstr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:161.Google Scholar
10. Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Maddox, D. M. 1976. History of weevils on puncturevine in and near the United States. Weed Sci. 24:414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39:629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1991. Efficacy of imazaquin on various weed species. Weed Sci. 39:243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar