Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:17:58.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Tuber Density and Trifloxysulfuron Application Timing on Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ran Nisim Lati ,
Sagi Filin  and
Hanan Eizenberg
Ran Nisim Lati*
Affiliation:
Mapping and Geo-Information Engineering, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 32000, Haifa, Israel
Sagi Filin
Affiliation:
Mapping and Geo-Information Engineering, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 32000, Haifa, Israel
Hanan Eizenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Weed Research, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), Newe Ya'ar Research Center, P.O. Box 1021, Ramat Yishay, Israel
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ranlati@tx.technion.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides are the basis for conventional management of purple nutsedge, one of the world's most troublesome weeds. However, as concern rises over their environmental impact, farmers are being required to reduce herbicide usage. Herbicide efficacy is strongly affected by weed growth stage and density at application, and when herbicides are applied under optimal conditions, low rates can provide maximal control efficacy (CE). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the time window for control of purple nutsedge using a low rate of herbicide, based on an effective degree days (EDDs) model, at low (one tuber) and high (10 tubers) densities. Two experiments were performed under field conditions, in the summers of 2009 and 2010. Rate of 3.75 g a.i. ha−1 trifloxysulfuron was applied once on each of five individual application dates. The growth of both treated and untreated plots was evaluated by means of leaf cover area (LCA) and biomass, which were then used to establish the time window for control. Results showed differences in both growth parameters between low and high tuber densities. The high-density patches reached LCA and fresh biomass values of 1,367 g and 1.12 m2, respectively, compared to 604 g and 0.69 m2, respectively, in the lower density patches. The favorable control periods based on biomass and LCA for the lower density patches were set to later dates than those for the higher density patches, 626 EDD compared to 483 EDD for biomass, and 786 EDD compared to 502 EDD for LCA, respectively. Although differences between the biomass- and LCA-based favorable control periods were observed at both tuber densities, the computed linear relations between the two growth parameters enabled adjusting them and setting the appropriate control period.

Keywords

TrifloxysulfuronPurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus LCYPROChemical controldensity levelEDDintraspecific competition
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 494 - 500
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

Aguiar, M. R., Lauenroth, W. K., and Peters, D. P. 2001. Intensity of intra and site-specific competition in coexisting short grass species. J. Ecol. 89:40–47.Google Scholar
Ali, S. 2002. Crop Protection. Edmonton, Canada Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Information Packaging Centre. 500 p.Google Scholar
Bangarwa, S. K., Norsworthy, J. K., Jha, P., and Malik, M. S. 2008. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) management in an organic production system. Weed Sci. 56:606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belles, D. S., Thill, D. C., and Shafi, B. 2000. PP-604 rate and Avena fatua density effects on seed production and viability in Hordeum vulgare . Weed Sci. 48:378–384.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Arsenovic, M., Shah, D. A., and Rauch, B. J. 2003. Effect of weed growth stage and adjuvant on the efficacy of fomesafen and bentazon. Weed Sci. 51:1016–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, L. R. and Park, S. E. 2007. The conductance model of plant growth and competition in monoculture and species mixtures: a review. Weed Res. 47:284–298.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Harker, K. N. 2006. Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: a review. Weed Biol. Manage. 6:10–17.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2006. Comparative growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions. Weed Sci. 54:121–126.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J., Stephenson, D. O., and Unruh, J. B. 2005. Control of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) with herbicides and mowing. Weed Technol. 19:809–814.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. and Mayer, D. G. 1988. Representing cumulative germination: the use of the Weibull function and other empirically derived curves. Ann. Bot. 61:127–138.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Reddy, K. N., and Molin, W. T. 2003. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population dynamics in narrow row transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Weed Technol. 17:805–810.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Shawn Troxler, C., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2008. Purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) response to post emergence herbicides in cotton. Weed Technol. 22:615–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenburg, D. E. 2000. Response of Setaria faberi demographic processes to herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 48:445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenburg, D. E. 2001. Response of Abutilon theophrasti demographic processes to herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 49:22–30.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., and Wyse-Pester, D. Y. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47:81–89.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 2006. Estimated corn yields using either weed cover or rated control after pre-emergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 54:373–379.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Colquhoun, J. B., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2004. The relationship between temperature and small broomrape (Orobanche minor) parasitism in red clover. Weed Sci. 52:735–741.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Colquhoun, J. B., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2006. Imazamox application timing for small broomrape (Orobanche minor) control in red clover (Trifolium pratense). Weed Sci. 54:923–927.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H. and Flash, I. 2006. A rational approach for chemical control of weeds in cotton. Gan Sade Va'Meshek, 3:8–9 [In Hebrew]Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Goldwasser, Y., Achdary, G., and Hershenhorn, J. 2003. The potential of sulfosulfuron to control troublesome weeds in tomato. Weed Technol. 17:133–137.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 2000. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J. Ecol. 88:386–391.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Blackshaw, R. E. 2003. Leaf extension rate may help determine when low wild oat herbicide rates will be effective. Weed Technol. 17:829–835.Google Scholar
Hochberg, O., Sibony, M., and Rubin, B. 2009. The response of ACCase-resistant Phalaris paradoxa populations involves two different target site mutations. Weed Res. 49:37–46.Google Scholar
Hock, S. M., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Sci. 54:38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, F. A., Kirkland, K. J., and Stevenson, F. C. 2000. Defining optimum herbicide rates and timing for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 14:167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972. Growth, tuber formation and spread of Cyperus rotundus from single tubers. Weed Res. 12:348–363.Google Scholar
Kim, D. S., Brain, P., Marshall, E. J. P., and Caseley, J. C. 2002. Modeling herbicide dose and weed density effects on crop: weed competition. Weed Res. 42:1–13.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., and Mainz, M. 2003. Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:666–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lati, R. N., Filin, S., and Eizenberg, H. 2011a. Robust methods for measurement of leaf cover area and biomass from image data. Weed Sci. 59:276–284.Google Scholar
Lati, R. N., Filin, S., and Eizenberg, H. 2011b. Temperature- and radiation-based models for predicting spatial growth of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 59:476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., Mahoney, K. J., Sikkema, P. H., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. The importance of light quality in crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 49:217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, K. J. and Swanton, C. J. 2008. Nitrogen and light affect the adaptive traits of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 56:81–90.Google Scholar
Manalil, S., Busi, R., Renton, M., and Powles, S. B. 2011. Rapid evolution of herbicide resistance by low herbicide dosages. Weed Sci. 59:210–217.Google Scholar
Miles, J. E., Kawabata, O., and Nishimoto, R. K. 2002. Modeling purple nutsedge sprouting under soil solarization. Weed Sci. 50:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Charudattan, R., Dusky, J. A., and Bewick, T. A. 2003. Above- and belowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato. Weed Sci. 51:181–185.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. P. and Dudley, S. A. 2007. Above- and below-ground cues elicit independent responses. J. Ecol. 95:261–272.Google Scholar
Myers, M. W., Curran, W. S., VanGessel, M. J., Calvin, D. D., Mortensen, D. A., Majek, B. A., Karsten, H. D., and Roth, G. W. 2004. Predicting weed emergence for eight annual species in the northeastern United States. Weed Sci. 52:913–919.Google Scholar
Niu, S., Liu, W., and Wan, S. 2008. Different growth responses of C3 and C4 grasses to seasonal water and nitrogen regimes and competition in a pot experiment. J. Exp. Bot. 59:1431–1439.Google Scholar
Nordblom, T. L., Jones, R. E., and Medd, R. W. 2003. Economics of factor adjusted herbicide doses: a simulation analysis of best efficacy targeting strategies (BETS). Agric. Syst. 76:863–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J. S., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New York Wiley. Pp. 278–301.Google Scholar
Riethmuller-Haage, I., Bastiaans, L., Kempenaar, C., Smutny, V., and Kropff, M. J. 2007. Are pre-spraying growing conditions a major determinant of herbicide efficiency? Weed Res. 47:415–424.Google Scholar
Rosales-Robles, E., Chandler, J. M., Senseman, S. A., and Prostko, E. P. 1999. Influence of growth stage and herbicide rate on post emergence johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol. 13:525–529.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–225.Google Scholar
Semchenko, M., Hutchings, M. J., and John, E. A. 2007. Challenging the tragedy of the commons in root competition: confounding effects of neighbour presence and substrate volume. J. Ecol. 95:252–260.Google Scholar
Simard, M-J., Légère, A., Séguin-Swartz, G., Nair, H., and Warwick, S. 2005. Fitness of double vs. single herbicide-resistant canola. Weed Sci. 53:489–498.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, G., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Ogbuchiekwe, E. J. 2008. Crop rotation effects on Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus population dynamics in southern California vegetable production. Weed Res. 48:420–428.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Patch expansion of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with and without polyethylene mulch. Weed Sci. 53:839–845.Google Scholar
Weigelt, A. and Jolliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol. 91:707–720.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol. 14:106–115.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. Ames, IA Blackwell Publishing. 220 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar