Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T18:06:16.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Control of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) with Foliar and Subsurface Layered Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. A. Banks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074
L. V. Hill
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074
P. W. Santelmann
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074

Abstract

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) was controlled most effectively when glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] was applied as a foliar spray to blooming field bindweed. This control resulted in significant yield increases of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Earlier growth stage treatments were less effective. Dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid), used similarly, controlled field bindweed but caused injury to the following wheat crop. Preharvest treatments of glyphosate in wheat aided harvesting operations and controlled the perennial field bindweed through the summer. Several dinitroaniline herbicides applied as a subsurface layer (SSL), controlled field bindweed for more than 8 months after treatment. However, these treatments caused visible injury and affected the yield of the first crop of wheat but had little effect on a second crop. Dicamba applied SSL at lower rates resulted in excellent field bindweed control.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the 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. Addison, D. A., Walker, J. C., and Arnold, W. R. 1974. Trifluralin applied as a subsurface layer for perennial weed control in the southwest. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:155160.Google Scholar
2. Banks, P. A., Kirby, M. G., and Santelmann, P. W. 1977. Influence of postemergence and subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle and peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Fenster, C. R., Hanway, D. G., and Burnside, O. C. 1962. Equipment for subsurface application of herbicides in fallow land. Weeds 10:329330.Google Scholar
4. Kempen, H. M., Agamalian, Harry, Elmore, Clyde, and Lange, Arthur. 1973. Subsurface layering of herbicides in California irrigated crops. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 26:460462.Google Scholar
5. Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1975. Control of Canada thistle and field bindweed in asparagus. Weed Sci. 23:458461.Google Scholar
6. Russ, O. G. and Anderson, L. E. 1960. Field bindweed control by combinations of cropping, cultivation, and 2,4-D. Weeds 8:397401.Google Scholar
7. Skelton, I. W., Alley, H. P., and Lee, G. A. 1973. Comparison of injection and surface application of herbicides for control of field bindweed and resulting crop tolerances. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 26:27.Google Scholar
8. Wiese, A. F. 1976. Glyphosate on perennial weeds. South Weed Sci. Soc. 29:8893.Google Scholar
9. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, P. E. 1962. Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10:5861.Google Scholar