Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:43:31.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Response of Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), and Meadow Hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum) to Imazapic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sandra L. Shinn  and
Donald C. Thill
Sandra L. Shinn*
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection, 67 Pinewood Road, Hudson, NY 12534
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yellow starthistle, spotted knapweed, and meadow hawkweed are three competitive noxious weeds that collectively infest about 640,000 ha of range and noncropland in Idaho. The purpose of this study was to determine the control of these three noxious weeds and undesirable annual grasses with imazapic applied at different rates and growth stages. Imazapic applied fall preemergence, spring postemergence (POST), or fall plus spring POST and picloram applied fall and spring POST reduced yellow starthistle plant density 75 to 100% compared with the untreated control, at about 100 d after spring treatment (DAST). However, by 440 DAST, yellow starthistle plant density did not differ from the untreated control in plots treated with imazapic, whereas picloram reduced plant density 82 to 99%. Imazapic did not control meadow hawkweed or spotted knapweed, whereas picloram reduced plant density of both species 91 to 100% 60 DAST compared with the untreated control and 71 to 100% 440 DAST. Imazapic did not affect weedy annual grass plant density compared with the untreated control at the yellow starthistle or the spotted knapweed sites. However, at the meadow hawkweed sites, imazapic applied spring POST at 210 g/ha and fall plus spring POST at 70 plus 140 g/ha reduced grass plant density 77 to 84% 60 DAST. All treatments that contained spring-applied imazapic reduced grass plant density 46 to 92%, 440 DAST at the meadow hawkweed site. At all locations, picloram increased weedy annual grass plant density two- to eightfold 440 DAST compared with the untreated control. Imazapic offers only moderate control of weedy annual grasses for a brief period after application and does not provide control of these three major noxious weed species in the West. Unfortunately, it eliminates a fairly new rangeland herbicide from the list of potential tank mix partners for control of auxinic herbicide–resistant weed species.

Keywords

Imazapicpiclorammeadow hawkweed, Hieracium caespitosum Dumort. #3 HIECAspotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Lam. # CENMAyellow starthistle, Centaurea solstitialis L. # CENSOBiomassgrass speciesplant densityDAST, days after spring treatmentDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 94 - 101
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

Anonymous. 1970. Common Weeds of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. New York, NY: Dover. pp. 382; 386.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Miller, T. W. 1994. Idaho's Noxious Weed Pictorial Guide. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 75 p.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Northam, F. E., Johnson, J. B., Michalson, E. L., and Prather, T. S. 1989a. Yellow Starthistle Biology and Management in Pasture and Rangeland. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Current Information Series No. 634. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Thill, D. C., and Watenbarger, D. W. 1989b. Hawkweeds. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Current Information Series No. 633. pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Davis, E. S. 1990. Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) Seed Longevity, Chemical Control, and Seed Morphology. , Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 109 p.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., Orloff, S. B., Enloe, S. F., and Nader, G. A. 1999. New growth regulator herbicide provides excellent control of yellow starthistle. Calif. Agric. 53: 2.Google Scholar
Hirsch, S. A. and Leitch, J. A. 1996. The Impact of Knapweed on Montana's Economy. Fargo, ND: Agricultural Economic Rep. 355. North Dakota State University. 44 p.Google Scholar
Jette, C., Connett, J., and McCaffrey, J. P. 1999. Biology and Biological Control Agents of Yellow Starthistle. United States Department of Agriculture: Morgantown, WV. 93 p.Google Scholar
Lacey, J. R. and Olson, B. E. 1991. Environmental and economic impacts of noxious range weeds. In James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview. pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
Larson, L. L. and McInnis, M. L. 1989. Response of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and grass biomass to grass, picloram, and fertilizer combinations. Weed Technol. 3: 497–500.Google Scholar
Miller, T. W., Shinn, S. L., and Thill, D. C. 2001. Cross resistance and chemical control of auxin-resistant yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Technol. 15: 293–299.Google Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11: 384–393.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M., Toney, J. C., Bedunah, D. J., and Carlson, C. E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa . J. Appl. Ecol. 34: 1397–1412.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1991. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Statistics, 5th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis systems Institute. 582 p.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Duncan, C. A., Halstvedt, M. B., and Jacobs, J. S. 2000. Spotted knapweed and grass response to herbicide treatment. J. Range Manag. 53: 176–182.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. 2001. The Response of Yellow Starthistle, Spotted Knapweed, Meadow Hawkweed and Annual and Perennial Grasses to Imazapic. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Sterling, T. M., Lownds, N. K., and Murray, L. W. 2001. Picloram-resistant and -susceptible yellow starthistle accessions have similar competitive ability. Weed Sci. 49: 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. K. and Renney, A. J. 1974. The biology of Canadian weeds. 6. Centaurea maculosa and C. diffusa . Can. J. Plant Sci. 54: 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar