Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T12:38:21.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Growth Regulator Herbicides Prevent Invasive Annual Grass Seed Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew J. Rinella*
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT 59301
Marshall R. Haferkamp
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT 59301
Robert A. Masters
Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268
Jennifer M. Muscha
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT 59301
Susan E. Bellows
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT 59301
Lance T. Vermeire
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT 59301
Corresponding author's E-mail:


Auxinic herbicides, such as 2,4-D and dicamba, that act as plant growth regulators are commonly used for broadleaf weed control in cereal crops (e.g., wheat, barley), grasslands, and noncroplands. If applied at late growth stages, while cereals are developing reproductive parts, the herbicides can reduce seed production. We tested whether growth regulators have this same effect on the invasive annual grass Japanese brome. The herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram were applied at typical field use rates to Japanese brome at various growth stages in a greenhouse. Picloram reduced seed production nearly 100% when applied at the internode elongation, boot, or heading stages of growth, whereas dicamba appeared to be slightly less effective and 2,4-D was much less effective. Our results indicate it may be possible to control Japanese brome by using growth regulator herbicides to reduce its seed production, thereby depleting its short-lived seed bank.

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.)


Literature Cited

Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Weisberg, S., and Hubbard, K. G. 1996. Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci 44:7486.Google Scholar
Crone, E. E., Marler, M., and Pearson, D. E. 2009. Non-target effects of broadleaf herbicide on a native perennial forb: a demographic framework for assessing and minimizing impacts. J. Appl. Ecol 46:673682.Google Scholar
Davies, K. W. and Svejcar, T. J. 2008. Comparison of medusahead-invaded and noninvaded Wyoming big sagebrush steppe in southeastern Oregon. Rangeland Ecol, Manag 61:623629.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255265.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Brooks, M. L., Allen, E. B., Minnich, R., Rice, P. M., and Kyser, G. B. 2006a. Control of invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technol 20:535548.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., Miller, J. R., Garcia, S., Smith, R. F., Nader, G., Connor, M. J., and Orloff, S. B. 2006b. Integrating prescribed burning and clopyralid for the management of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci 54:757767.Google Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York Chapman and Hall. 436.Google Scholar
Friesen, H. A., Born, W. H. V., Keys, C. H., Dryden, R. D., Molberg, E. S., and Siemens, B. 1968. Effect of time of application and dosage of dicamba on tolerance of wheat, oats and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci 48:213215.Google Scholar
Haferkamp, M. R., Grings, E. E., Heitschmidt, R. K., MacNeil, M. D., and Karl, M. G. 2001a. Suppression of annual bromes impacts rangeland: animal responses. J. Range Manag 54:663668.Google Scholar
Haferkamp, M. R. and Heitschmidt, R. K. 1999. Japanese brome impacts on western wheatgrass in northern great plains rangelands: an update. Great Plains Res 9:315327.Google Scholar
Haferkamp, M. R., Heitschmidt, R. K., Grings, E. E., MacNeil, M. D., and Karl, M. G. 2001b. Suppression of annual bromes impacts rangeland: vegetation responses. J. Range Manag 54:656662.Google Scholar
Harmoney, K. R. 2007. Grazing and burning Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) on mixed grass rangelands. Rangeland Ecol. Manag 60:479486.Google Scholar
Hjorth, J. S. U. 1994. Computer Intensive Statistical Methods. London Chapman and Hall. 261.Google Scholar
Hulbert, L. C. 1955. Ecological studies of Bromus tectorum and other annual bromegrasses. Ecol. Monogr 25:181213.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 633.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Kirby, D. R. 1991. Effect of glyphosate on introduced and native grasses. Weed Technol 5:421425.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control and improved forage production with herbicides. J. Range Manag 38:386391.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Sheley, R. L. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. J. Range Manag 54:502517.Google Scholar
Ogle, S. M., Ojima, D., and Reiners, W. A. 2004. Modeling the impact of exotic annual brome grasses on soil organic carbon storage in a mixed grass prairie. Biol. Invasions 6:365377.Google Scholar
Perry, L. G., Cronin, S. A., and Paschke, M. W. 2009. Native cover crops suppress exotic annuals and favor native perennials in a greenhouse competition experiment. Plant Ecol 204:247259.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Kells, J. J., and Ward, R. W. 2001. Response of ‘Wakefield’ winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to dicamba. Weed Technol 15:523529.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Maxwell, B. D., Fay, P. K., Weaver, T., and Sheley, R. L. 2009. Control effort exacerbates invasive species problem. Ecol. Appl 19:155162.Google Scholar
Robison, L. R. and Fenster, C. R. 1973. Winter wheat response to herbicides applied postemergence. Agron. J 65:749751.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Duncan, C. A., Halstvedt, M. B., and Jacobs, J. S. 2000. Spotted knapweed and grass response to herbicide treatments. J. Range Manag 53:176182.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 438.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2002. The response of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) to imazapic and picloram. Weed Technol 16:366370.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L. and Thill, D. C. 2004. Tolerance of several perennial grasses to imazapic. Weed Technol 18:6065.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Brown, L., Shropshire, C., and Soltani, N. 2007. Responses of three types of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to spring-applied post-emergence herbicides. Crop Prot 26:715720.Google Scholar
Smith, D. C., Meyer, S. E., and Anderson, V. J. 2008. Factors affecting Bromus tectorum seed bank carryover in western Utah. Rangeland Ecol. Manag 61:430436.Google Scholar
Sperry, L. J., Belnap, J., and Evans, R. D. 2006. Bromus tectorum invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an undisturbed arid grassland ecosystem. Ecology 87:603615.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D. and Koch, D. W. 1998. Control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) with herbicides and perennial grass competition. Weed Technol 12:391396.Google Scholar