Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:58:40.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicides to Prevent Seed Set or Germination of Medusahead

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Raymond A. Evans ,
Burgess L. Kay  and
Cyrus M. McKell
Raymond A. Evans
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Burgess L. Kay
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis, California
Cyrus M. McKell
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Davis, California University of California, Riverside, California
Get access

Abstract

3-Amino-1,2,4-triazole (amitrole) sprayed on annual grassland infested with medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae L.) at 1/2 to 4 lb/A when medusahead was in the boot or soft dough stage reduced viable caryopses from 60 to 100 percent, and seed production the following year from 75 to almost 100 percent. 1,2-Dihydropyridazine-3-6-dione (maleic hydrazide) and 2,2-dichloropropionic acid (dalapon) reduced viability of medusahead seeds, but were less effective than amitrole. Viable caryopses of soft chess (Bromus mollis L.) were reduced and the year following treatment soft chess was decreased in the stands by early application (boot stage of medusahead) but not by late application of herbicides, when the soft chess heads were dry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1963 , pp. 273 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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 Crafts, A. S. 1961. The chemistry and mode of action of herbicides. Interscience Publishers, New York, 289p. (189).Google Scholar
2. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F. tests. Biometrics 11:1–42.Google Scholar
3. Evans, R. A. and Love, R. M. 1957. The step-point method of sampling—A practical tool in range research. J. Range Mgmt. 10:208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Furtick, W. R. and Chilcote, D. O. 1960. The responses of small grains to amitrole at various growth stages. Weed Society of America, Abstracts, p. 2.Google Scholar
5. Major, J., McKell, C. M., and Berry, L. J. 1960. Improvements of medusahead—infested rangeland. California Agric. Expt. Sta. Ext. Serv. Leaf. 123, 8p.Google Scholar
6. McKell, C. M., Kay, B. L. and Major, J. 1959. Herbicides on rangeland forage. California Agric. 13 (4): 7–15.Google Scholar
7. McKell, C. M., Wilson, A. M., and Kay, B. L. 1962. Effective burning of rangelands infested with medusahead. Weeds 10:125–131.Google Scholar