Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:50:54.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of triclopyr and synthetic auxin herbicide mixtures for common blue violet (Viola sororia) control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2020

Aaron J. Patton Open the ORCID record for Aaron J. Patton [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniel V. Weisenberger  and
Wenwen Liu Open the ORCID record for Wenwen Liu [Opens in a new window]
Aaron J. Patton*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Daniel V. Weisenberger
Affiliation:
Research Agronomist, Retired, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Wenwen Liu
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Aaron J. Patton, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, 625 Agriculture Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN47907. (Email: ajpatton@purdue.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common blue violet is a widely distributed, perennial broadleaf that is difficult to control in lawns. Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of synthetic auxin herbicides and their mixtures or rate for common blue violet control. A herbicide comparison experiment was conducted with treatments including a nontreated check; 2,4-D dimethylamine; 2,4-D isooctyl ester (2,4-D ester); dichlorprop (2,4-DP) ethylhexyl ester, MCPA dimethylamine; mecoprop dimethylamine; triclopyr butoxyethyl ester; quinclorac; and mixtures of triclopyr + quinclorac; 2,4-D ester + 2,4-DP; 2,4-D ester + triclopyr; 2,4-D ester + 2,4-DP + triclopyr. All herbicides were applied at 1.12 kg ae ha−1 except quinclorac (0.84 kg ha−1). Additionally, a triclopyr dose-response experiment was conducted using rates of 0, 0.14, 0.28, 0.56, 0.84, and 1.12 kg ha−1. Epinasty ranged from 80% to 99% at 21 d after application for triclopyr-containing treatments and no more than 28% for all other treatments. Plant mass from harvest and regrowth data from the comparison experiment indicated triclopyr-containing treatments provided the highest common blue violet control. Mixtures containing triclopyr did not differ from triclopyr alone, indicating there was no added effect between herbicide mixtures. The triclopyr dose-response experiment confirmed triclopyr efficacy across data collection types. As triclopyr dose increased, violet epinasty increased and chlorophyll content and dry weight decreased. Triclopyr applied at 0.81 kg ha−1 or greater concentration provided 75% or greater control, as indicated by regrowth data. Many herbicides containing triclopyr are registered for use in turf, but most apply a concentration not greater than 0.56 kg ha−1 triclopyr when applied at the high label rate. Thus, to achieve good (75%) common blue violet control, turf managers should select products that contain triclopyr and apply doses of at least 0.81 kg ha−1 when used according to the label.

Keywords

2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid(±)-2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)propanoic acid (mecoprop)(±)-2-(2, 4-dichlorophenoxy)propanoic acid (dichlorprop)2, 4-D dimethylamine2, 4-D isooctyl ester4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid3, 7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid (quinclorac)3, 5, 6-trichloro-2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid (triclopyr)common blue violetViola sororia Willd. VIOPP.Viola papilionaceawild violetwooly blue violet
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 475 - 481
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Barry Brecke, University of Florida

References

Altom, JV, Stritzke, JF, Weeks, DL (1992) Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) control with selected postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 6:573–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2008) Turflon® Ester herbicide label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLCGoogle Scholar
Baird, VB (1942) Wild Violets of North America. Berkley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Beck, LL, Patton, AJ (2015) Weed garden: an effective tool for Extension education. J Extension 53:Article 4TOT8Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J (2009) Common lespedeza control in cavalier zoysiagrass. Pages 9–11in Richardson, M, Karcher, D, Patton, A, eds. Arkansas Turfgrass Report 2008. Fayetteville, AR: Arkanasas Agricultural Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
Brosnan, JT, Breeden, GK (2019) Postemergence weed control in warm-season turfgrass with a mixture of pyrimisulfan and penoxsulam. HortScience 54:960–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, R (2002). Tough turf weeds in Michigan: management options. Pages 95–97 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Christians, NE, Patton, AJ, Law, QD (2017) Fundamentals of turfgrass management. 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 480 pGoogle Scholar
Cooperrider, TS (1984) Some species mergers and new combinations in the Ohio flora. Mich Bot 23:165–168Google Scholar
Dernoeden, PH, Davis, DB (1988) Control of common blue violet, buckhorn plantain, and other weeds in turf. Pages 181–182 in Proceedings of the 1988 Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Georgetown, DE: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, J, Murphy, T, Waltz, C, Yelverton, F (2004) Sulfonylurea herbicides: how do different turfgrasses tolerate them? Turfgrass Trends Pp 92–98Google Scholar
Gray, E, Call, NM (1993) Fertilization and mowing on persistence of Indian mockstrawberry (Duchesnea indica) and common blue violet (Viola papilionacea) in a tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) lawn. Weed Sci 41:548–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, EO (1939) Reports on the flora of Ohio. I. Notes on the Ohio violets with additions to the state flora. Ohio J Sci 39:144–154Google Scholar
Hanson, K, Branham, BE (1986) Broadleaf weed control research. Pages 39–43 in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
[ITIS] Integrated Taxonomic Information System (2019) The Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-line database. http://www.itis.gov. Accessed: December 28, 2019Google Scholar
Jagschitz, JA, Sawyer, CD (1987) Postemergence control of spurge, violet, and oxalis in turf. Pages 238–239 in Proceedings of the 1987 Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Williamsburg, VA: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Jifon, JL, Syvertsen, JP, Whaley, E (2005) Growth environment and leaf anatomy affect nondestructive estimates of chlorophyll and nitrogen in Citrus sp. leaves. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 130:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCurdy, JD, McElroy, JS, Flessner, ML (2015) Common lespedeza (Kummerowia striata) control within maintained centipedegrass turf. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag 1:1–5. doi: 10.2134/cftm2015.0140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, LE (1987) A resurvey of the violets (Viola) of Tennessee. J Tenn Acad Sci 62:83–87Google Scholar
McKinney, LE (1992) A Taxonomic Revision of the Acaulescent Blue Violets (Viola) of North America. SIDA, Botanical Miscellany No.7. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 59 pGoogle Scholar
Mithila, J, Hall, JC, Johnson, WG, Kelley, KB, Riechers, DE (2011) Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: historical perspectives, mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Sci 59:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munshaw, G, Green, JD, Barrett, M (2015) Herbicide Recommendations for Weed Control in Kentucky Bluegrass and Tall Fescue Lawns for Professional Applicators. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Agriculture and Natural Resources PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Patton, AJ, Elmore, M, Hoyle, J, Kao-Kniffin, J, Branham, B, Voigt, T, Christians, N, Thoms, A, Munshaw, G, Hathaway, A, Nikolai, T, Horgan, B, Miller, L, Xiong, X, Kreuser, W, Gaussoin, R, Gardner, D, Raudenbush, Z, Li, D, Landschoot, P, Soldat, D, Koch, P (2019) Turfgrass Weed Control for Professionals. Purdue University Extension Publication. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. 128 pGoogle Scholar
Patton, AJ, Weisenberger, DV, Schortgen, GP (2018) 2,4-D Resistant buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in managed turf. Weed Technol 32:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, AJ, Witt, WW, Tapp, LD (1987). Control of wild violets in turf. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Kentucky Turfgrass Research. Pp 44–46Google Scholar
Russell, NH (1965) Violets (Viola) of central and eastern United States: an introductory survey. SIDA Contrib Bot 2:1–113Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Nashville, TN: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JD, Mohlenbrock, RH (1963). Observations on some Illinois violets. Castanea 28:55–58Google Scholar
Solbrig, OT, Newell, SJ, Kincaid, DT (1980) The population biology of the genus Viola: I. The demography of Viola sororia. J Ecol 68:521–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopps, G, White, S, Clements, D, Upadhyaya, M (2011) The biology of Canadian weeds. 149. Rumex acetosella L. Can J Plant Sci 91:1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2019) The PLANTS database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: December 28, 2019Google Scholar
Vrabel, TE (1987) Wild violet control in cool season turf. Page 237 in Proceedings of the 1987 Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Williamsburg, VA: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Warren, LS, Gannon, TW, Yelverton, FH (2005) Efficacy of recently registered sulfonylurea herbicides for broadleaf weed control in warm season turf. Page 115 in Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society. Charlotte, NC: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Witt, WW, Powell, AJ, Tapp, L (1986) Control of wild violets in turf. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Kentucky Turfgrass Research. Pp 48–53Google Scholar