Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:32:41.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Sequential Herbicide Treatment, Herbicide Application Timing, and Mowing on Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kevin W. Bradley  and
Edward S. Hagood Jr.
Kevin W. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
Edward S. Hagood Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted during 1998 and 1999 to evaluate the effects of sequential herbicide treatment, herbicide application timing, and mowing on mugwort control. In the first field trial dicamba, triclopyr, clopyralid, picloram, metsulfuron, glufosinate, glyphosate, and the dimethylamine salt and the isooctyl ester of 2,4-D were applied to mugwort at 7-wk intervals to evaluate mugwort control after one, two, and three herbicide applications. When applied in three sequential applications, all herbicides except triclopyr, metsulfuron, and glufosinate provided at least 70% mugwort control 1 yr after treatment (YAT). At least 70% mugwort control was also achieved with just two sequential applications of dicamba, and only one application of picloram or clopyralid provided 100 and 84% mugwort control 1 YAT, respectively. In the second field trial the influence of application timing was investigated by applying herbicides to mugwort in the vegetative and the flowering stages of growth. Additionally, the effect of sequential mowing was evaluated by applying herbicides to mugwort regrowth after either one or two mowings. Generally, there was no difference in the level of mugwort control achieved with applications of these herbicides to mugwort in the flowering vs. the vegetative stage of growth. However, when averaged over all the herbicides included in these trials, two sequential mowings conducted before herbicide application enhanced the control of mugwort compared with either unmowed mugwort or mugwort that had been mowed once before herbicide application. Additionally, with the exception of picloram and glyphosate, all the herbicides evaluated in these trials provided higher mugwort control when applied to unmowed mugwort compared with mugwort that had been mowed only once. The results from these trials indicate that sequential herbicide treatment and sequential mowing are strategies that will enhance the control of mugwort when used with the majority of herbicides evaluated in these trials.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-D dimethylamine saltdicamba2,4-D isooctyl esterglufosinateglyphosatemetsulfuronpicloramtriclopyrmugwort, Artemisia vulgaris L. #3 ARTVUCultural controlgrowth regulator herbicidesgrowth stagenonselective herbicidesperennial weed controlregrowth, rhizomeMAT, months after treatmentWAT, weeks after treatmentYAT, years after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 346 - 352
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

Ahrens, J. F. 1976. Chemical control of Artemisia vulgaris in ornamentals. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 30: 303–307.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A., Kirby, M. A., and Santelmann, P. W. 1977. Influence of postemergence and subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle and peanuts. Weed Sci. 25: 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, S. W. 1965. Chemical control of mugwort. Weeds 13: 239–242.Google Scholar
Bixler, L. L., Cooley, A. W., and Carrithers, V. F. 1991. Canada thistle control at two stages of plant growth with clopyralid. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 44: 44–47.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. W. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. 2000. Effect of herbicide rate, sequential herbicide treatment, and mowing on mugwort control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:32.Google Scholar
Day, M. Y., Hagood, E. S. Jr., and Johnson, S. M. 1997. Evaluation of herbicide programs for mugwort control in corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:34.Google Scholar
Edenfield, M. W., Brecke, B. J., Colvin, D. L., Shilling, D. G., and Dusky, J. A. 1998. Effects of application timing and rate with glyphosate for purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in Roundup Ready™ cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:48.Google Scholar
Gorrell, R. M., Bingham, S. W., and Foy, C. L. 1981. Control of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) fleshy roots in pastures. Weed Sci. 29: 586–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. 1129 p.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Dotray, P. A., Osborne, T. S., and Asher, B. S. 1998. Annual and perennial weed management strategies in roundup ready cotton with roundup ultra. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:49.Google Scholar
Macdonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., Colvin, D. L., and Shilling, D. G. 1994. Chemical and mechanical control of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Weed Technol. 8: 483–487.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Mullahey, J. J., and Martin, F. G. 1999. Preherbicide mowing and herbicide rate on tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) control. Weed Technol. 13: 172–175.Google Scholar
Mitra, S. and Bhowmik, P. C. 1999. Effect of growth stages on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 13: 42–47.Google Scholar
Moshier, L. J., Russ, O. G., O'Connor, J. P., and Claassen, M. M. 1986. Honeyvine milkweed (Ampelamus albidus) response to foliar herbicides. Weed Sci. 34: 730–734.Google Scholar
Orfanedes, M. and Wax, L. M. 1991. Differential response of hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) to clopyralid, Dowco 433, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 5: 782–788.Google Scholar
Rabbitt, A. E. and Cook, R. N. 1964. Control of Artemisia vulgaris around established shrubs. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 18: 239–242.Google Scholar
Rogerson, A. B. and Bingham, S. W. 1971. Uptake and translocation of selected herbicides in mugwort. Weed Sci. 19: 325–329.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Mack, R. E. 1991. Application timing of herbicides for the control of redvine (Brunnichia ovata). Weed Technol. 5: 125–129.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Ratnayake, S., and Smith, C. A. 1990. Effects of herbicide application timing on johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) control. Weed Technol. 4: 900–903.Google Scholar
Thomsen, C. D., Vayssières, M., and Williams, W. A. 1994. Grazing and mowing management of yellow starthistle. Proc. Calif. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 228–230.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 397 p.Google Scholar
Westerman, R. B., Murray, D. S., and Castner, E. P. 1993. Hogpotato (Hoffmanseggia glauca) control with herbicides and rotational crop response. Weed Technol. 7: 650–656.Google Scholar
Willard, T. R., Shilling, D. G., Gaffney, J. F., and Currey, W. L. 1996. Mechanical and chemical control of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Weed Technol. 10: 722–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar