Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T21:28:09.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Glyphosate on Tuber Sprouting and Growth of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ching-Yuh Wang
Ching-Yuh Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cywang@nchu.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted to determine the dose–response of purple nutsedge tuber sprouting and plant growth to glyphosate. Tuber sprouting on day 6 satisfactorily fitted the probit model, with a predicted effective dosage causing 50% inhibition of response (ED50) of 30 mM, which is similar to that with 25 mM of ED50 on day 3. In addition, together with the dose–response analysis of bud growth on day 6, it was shown that bud growth of purple nutsedge was more sensitive to root- or tuber-absorbed glyphosate or both than was tuber sprouting; the former had 1.25 mM of ED50. During the V1–2 stage, purple nutsedge injury, including shoot dehydration, wilting, and yellowing, appeared sequentially when glyphosate was absorbed. When compared with the dose–response of shoot greenness of purple nutsedge at the V5–7 stage under the root-absorbed glyphosate treatment, purple nutsedge at the V1–2 stage was less sensitive to root-applied glyphosate. Further studies for determining the efficacy of glyphosate applied on root and foliage of purple nutsedge at the V5–7 stage showed that injury from glyphosate occurred within 7 d after foliar treatment, and the ED50 values of glyphosate for shoot survival and leaf chlorophyll were 13.1 and 14.5 mM, respectively. However, the response of plants was less sensitive to root-absorbed glyphosate, which had an ED50 of 101 mM. This finding might be the result of direct injury of roots caused by glyphosate, resulting in the delayed and diluted effect of this herbicide from root to shoot.

Keywords

Glyphosatepurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. #3 CYPRODose–responsegrowthyoung plantDAT, days after treatmentED50, effective dosage causing 50% inhibition of responseEPSPS, 5-enol-pyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EC 2.5.1.19)
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 477 - 481
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

Bryson, C. T., Hanks, J. E., and Will, G. D. 1994. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) control in reduced-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) with low-volume technology. Weed Technol. 8: 28–31.Google Scholar
Charles, G. W. 1996. Developing a nutgrass control program. Aust. Cottongrower 17: 2. 18: 20, 22.Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Brouquisse, R., and Raymond, P. 1995a. Organic nitrogen reserves and their mobilization during sprouting of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) tubers. J. Exp. Bot. 46: 1803–1808.Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Caseley, J. C., Varsane, R., Negbi, M., and Rubin, B. 1995b. Factors affecting benfuresate activity against purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L). Weed Res. Oxford 35: 279–287.Google Scholar
Hurt, R. T. and Vencill, W. K. 1994. Evaluation of three imidazolinone herbicides for control of yellow and purple nutsedge in woody and herbaceous landscape plants. J. Environ. Hortic. 12: 131–134.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1996. Adjuvants and growth stage affect purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control with chlorimuron and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 10: 359–362.Google Scholar
Kim, J. S., Shin, W. K., Kim, T. J., and Cho, K. Y. 1994. Sprouting characteristics and herbicidal responses of purple nutsedge. Korean J. Weed Sci. 14: 120–127.Google Scholar
Kleifeld, Y., Blumenfeld, T., Herzlinger, G., and Bucsbaum, H. 1992. Control of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) in cotton with benfuresate. Phytoparasitica 20: 37–46.Google Scholar
Manickam, G. and Gnanamoorthy, P. 1994. Control of nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus L.) with herbicides. Indian J. Agron. 39: 514–515.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. and Barbe, C. 1995. The influence of rain (or irrigation) and tillage on the control of Cyperus rotundus by glyphosate (Roundup). Rev. Agric. Sucr. Ile. Maurice 74: 1–2. 61–64. (Abstract in English.).Google Scholar
Rambakudzibga, A. M. 1989. Effect of spray volume and additive on the activity of glyphosate on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L). Zimb. J. Agric. Res. 27: 113–121.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of imazethapyr to purple (Cyperus rotundus L.) and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus esculentus L). Weed Technol. 7: 900–905.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–227.Google Scholar
Yoshida, S., Forna, D. A., Cock, J. H., and Gomez, K. A. 1971. Laboratory Manual for Physiological Studies of Rice. Los Banos, Laguua, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. 61 p.Google Scholar
Zaenudin, A. Soedarsan and Tjitrosoepomo, G. 1996. The effect of application time on the effectiveness of glyphosate to control purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) in coffee plantation. Pelita Perkebunan 12: 158–167.Google Scholar