Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:39:26.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of ‘Wakefield’ Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) to Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew J. Rinella ,
James J. Kells  and
Richard W. Ward
Matthew J. Rinella
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Richard W. Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dicamba is a herbicide used for the control of broadleaf weeds in wheat. Dicamba, applied within the recommended growth stage interval, reduced the grain yield of Wakefield winter wheat by 95% in a herbicide sensitivity study at Michigan State University. Growers have also reported yield loss when using dicamba on Wakefield. Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted to characterize the response of Wakefield winter wheat to dicamba and to compare this response to that of ‘Harus’ winter wheat, a cultivar that is not considered sensitive to dicamba. This research was conducted to characterize the sensitivity of Wakefield to dicamba and to develop visual methods for detecting sensitivity of wheat cultivars to dicamba. Field experiments confirmed that dicamba affects the number of spikelets and the seed weight of Harus and Wakefield similarly. However, dicamba, applied within the recommended application interval, caused small, shriveled (underdeveloped) seeds to occur in Wakefield in the field and greenhouse. These seeds weighed very little, did not contribute to grain yield, and could not be harvested mechanically. Dicamba reduced the number of fully developed seeds of Wakefield by as much as 62% in the field and 92% in the greenhouse when applied within the recommended application interval. The number of fully developed seeds of Harus was reduced in the field only when dicamba was applied later than the recommended application interval. Decreases in grain yield due to dicamba were caused primarily by decreases in the number of fully developed seeds. Greenhouse experiments indicated that pollen abnormalities were only a minor cause of the development of underdeveloped seeds.

Keywords

Dicambawinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Harus’, ‘Wakefield’Herbicide sensitivitygrowth regulatorsF2, Feekes stage 2F3, Feekes stage 3F5, Feekes stage 5F9, Feekes stage 9F10, Feekes stage 10
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 523 - 529
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

Appleby, A. P. 1987. Weed control in wheat. In Wheat and Wheat Improvements. Madison, WI: Am. Soc. Agron. pp. 396–401.Google Scholar
Chang, F. Y. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1971. Dicamba uptake, translocation, metabolism, and selectivity. Weed Sci. 19: 113–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L. G., Switzer, C. M., and Fletcher, R. A. 1972. Nucleic acid and protein changes induced by auxin-like herbicides. Weed Sci. 20: 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, I. B. and Miller, S. D. 1978. Spring wheat varietal tolerance to application of difenzoquat or MCPA-dicamba. North Central Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 33: 57–60.Google Scholar
Friesen, H. A., Baenziger, H., and Keys, C. H. 1963. Morphological and cytological effects of dicamba on wheat and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 44: 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holroyd, J. 1962. New post-emergence herbicides in cereals. Part II: field experiments. Proc. 6th Br. Weed Control Conf. pp. 157–177.Google Scholar
Large, E. C. 1954. Growth stages in cereals. Illustrations of the Feekes scale. Plant Pathol. 3: 128–129.Google Scholar
Martin, D. A., Miller, S. D., and Alley, H. P. 1989. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) response to herbicides applied at three growth stages. Weed Technol. 3: 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. A., Miller, S. D., and Alley, H. P. 1990. Spring wheat response to herbicides applied at three growth stages. Agron. J. 82: 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinthus, M. J. and Natowitz, Y. 1967. Response of spring wheat to the application of 2,4-D at various growth stages. Weed Res. 7: 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quimby, P. C. Jr. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1966. Effect of dicamba on wheat and wild buckwheat at various stages of development. Weed Sci. 14: 229–232.Google Scholar
Robison, L. R. and Fenster, C. R. 1973. Winter wheat response to herbicides applied postemergence. Agron. J. 65: 749–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, J. and Banks, P. A. 1989. Soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) response to dicamba and dicamba plus 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 3: 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scragg, E. B. 1952. The effects of ‘hormone’ herbicides upon cereal crops. Ann. Appl. Biol. 39: 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottman, D. R. 1977. A comparison of the tolerance by winter wheat of herbicide mixtures containing dicamba and 2,3,6-TBA, or ioxynil. Weed Res. 17: 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottman, D. R. 1978. The effects of a dicamba herbicide mixture on the grain yield components of winter wheat. Weed Res. 18: 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottman, D. R. 1982. The effects of broad-leaved weed herbicides applied to cereal crop at different growth stages. Aspects Appl. Biol. 1: 201–210.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R. and Duval, A. 1987. Leaf sheath length as a guide to apical development and spray timing in winter wheat. Proc. 1978 Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. pp. 143–149.Google Scholar