Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:18:05.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction of Prodiamine and Flumioxazin for Nursery Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn Wehtje ,
Charles H. Gilliam  and
Stephen C. Marble
Glenn Wehtje*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Stephen C. Marble
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both prodiamine and flumioxazin are used in the nursery production and landscape maintenance industries in the southeastern United States for preemergence weed control. Research was conducted to determine whether a tank mixture of these two herbicides would be more effective than either component applied alone. Prodiamine alone, flumioxazin alone, and a 72 : 28 (by weight) prodiamine–flumioxazin mixture were each applied at a series of rates to containers filled with a pine bark–sand substrate that is typical for nursery production in the southeastern United States. Our intent was to have a rate range that hopefully extended from ineffective to lethal for each treatment series. Subsequent to treatment, containers were overseeded with either large crabgrass, spotted spurge, or eclipta. Percent control was determined by comparing treated weed foliage fresh weight to that of the appropriate nontreated control at 6 and 12 wk after application. ANOVA followed by nonlinear regression was used to evaluate the interaction of prodiamine and flumioxazin when combined and to determine the rate of each treatment series required for 95% control (if applicable) for each of the three weed species. Results varied with weed species. The mixture was synergistic and more cost effective than either of the components applied alone in controlling spotted spurge. With respect to large crabgrass control, the mixture was additive and slightly more cost effective than the components. Eclipta could only be controlled with flumioxazin, and this control was antagonized by the addition of prodiamine.

Tanto el prodiamine como el flumioxazin son utilizados en los invernaderos y en la industria de arquitectura y mantenimiento de jardines en el sureste de los Estados Unidos para el control de malezas en pre-emergencia. Una investigación se llevo al cabo para determinar si las mezclas de estos dos herbicidas serían más efectivas que cada uno de sus componentes aplicados por separado. El prodiamine y el flumioxazin aplicados individualmente y en mezcla a 72 : 28 (por peso), en diferentes dosis a maceteros llenos con un sustrato de arena con corteza de pino, la cual es típica en el cultivo en invernaderos en esa región. Nuestra intención fue obtener un rango de dosis que se extendiera de total in-efectividad hasta la muerte para cada tratamiento. Después del tratamiento, los maceteros fueron hiper-sembrados ya sea con Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop., Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Small. ó Eclipta alba (L.). A las 6 y 12 semanas después de la aplicación, el porcentaje de control fue determinado a través de comparar el peso del follaje de la maleza fresca con el peso de los que no fueron tratados. ANOVA seguida por una regresión no lineal se utilizó para evaluar la interacción de prodiamine y de flumioxazin cuando fueron combinados y para determinar la dosis requerida de cada tratamiento con el fin de obtener el 95% de control (si fuera aplicable) para cada una de las 3 especies de maleza. Los resultados variaron de acuerdo a la especie de maleza. La mezcla fue sinergética y más efectiva en cuanto a sus costos que cualquiera de sus componentes aplicados por separado en el control de Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Small. Respecto al control de Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop, la mezcla fue aditiva y ligeramente más rentable que los componentes. La Eclipta alba (L.) solamente podría ser controlada con flumioxazin, y este control se antagoniza con la adición de prodiamine.

Keywords

flumioxazinprodiamineeclipta, Eclipta alba (L.) Hassklarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scopspotted spurge, Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Smallherbicide interactionsnonlinear regressionornamental plant productionsoilless growth media
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 504 - 509
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

Altland, J. E., Gilliam, C. H., and Wehtje, G. 2003. Weed control in field nurseries. HortTechnology 13:9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. Boger, P. and Wakabayashi, K. Peroxidizing Herbicides. New York: Springer-Verlag Publishers. 405 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derr, J. F. 1994. Weed control in container-grown herbaceous perennials. HortScience 29:95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duray, S. A. and Davies, F. T. Jr. 1987. Efficacy of prodiamine for weed control in container grown landscape plants under high temperature production conditions. J. Environ. Hort. 5:82–84.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Vencill, W. K. 2003. Flumioxazin soil persistence and mineralization in laboratory experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:4719–4721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fretz, T. A. and Sheppard, W. J. 1980. Prodiamine: a promising herbicide for weed control in container nursery production. HortScience 15:489–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, L. and Segal, L. A. 1982. Interrelating factors controlling the rate of appearance of resistance: the outlook for the future. Pages 325–347. In LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J. eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.Google Scholar
Hacskaylo, J. and Amato, V. A. 1968. Effect of trifluralin on roots of corn and cotton. Weed Sci. 16:513–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1977. Effect of trifluralin and metribuzin combinations of soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 25:88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Duke, W. B. 1981. Soybean protection for triazine injury by pendimethalin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:56.Google Scholar
Motulsky, H. and Christopoulos, A. 2004. Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Nonlinear Regression. New York: Oxford University Press. 351 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, J. C. and Senesac, A. F. 1991. Preemergent herbicide safety in container-grown ornamental grasses. HortScience 26:157–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. and Prendeville, G. N. 1976. Interaction between soil-applied herbicides in the roots of some legume species. Weed Res. 16:331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parka, S. J. and Soper, O. F. 1977. The physiology and mode of action of the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 25:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J. and Zandstra, B. H. 2006. Evaluation of flumioxazin and other herbicide for weed control in gladiolus. Weed Technol. 20:394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruter, J. M. and Glaze, N. C. 1992. Herbicide combinations for control of prostrate spurge in container-grown landscape plants. J. Environ. Hort. 10:19–22.Google Scholar
Scalla, R. and Matringe, M. 1994. Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase as herbicides: diphenyl ethers and related photobleaching herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 6:103–132.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. Senseman, S. A. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 286–288.Google Scholar
South, D. B. 1992. Prodiamine: a herbicide for pine and hardwood nurseries. South. J. Applied Forestry 16:142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, R. H. and Neal, C. A. 1990. Evaluation of dinitroaniline herbicides for weed control in container landscape plant production. J. Environ. Hort. 8:52–57.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. and Jensen, J. E. 2000. Actions of herbicides in mixtures. Pages 153–180. In Cobb, A. H. and Kirkwood, R. C. eds. Herbicides and Their Mechanisms of Action. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Tallarida, R. J. 2001. Drug synergism: its detection and applications. Perspectives in Pharmacology 3:865–872.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2003. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:397.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Gilliam, C. H., and Marble, S. C. 2010. Postemergence weed control with glyphosate plus flumioxazin combinations. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar