Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:40:03.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fall-Applied Trifluralin Granules in Conservation-till Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gregory J. Endres  and
William H. Ahrens
Gregory J. Endres
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
William H. Ahrens
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate postplant crop residue, green and yellow foxtail control, and wheat grain yield after fall application of trifluralin granules in undisturbed small grain stubble. Levels of postplant residue were at least 48% cover (line transect method) and 2750 kg/ha of aboveground dry matter where herbicide granules were left unincorporated or were incorporated with conservation-till methods, including an undercutter, rotary hoe, or undercutter followed by a rotary hoe. Trifluralin at 0.56 kg/ha applied as granules in mid October in untilled stubble and incorporated with conservation-till methods controlled foxtail 81 to 88%, with control appearing slightly lower when granules were not incorporated. The 81 to 88% foxtail control in conservation-till treatments was comparable to control achieved with trifluralin at 0.56 kg/ha applied in mid October on conventionally-tilled soil and incorporated by a field cultivator. Foxtail control improved somewhat as trifluralin rate was increased to 0.84 and 1.12 kg/ha in conservation-till treatments. Slight wheat stand reductions at 1.12 kg/ha of trifluralin did not appear to reduce wheat yield. Fall application of trifluralin granules in these high-residue conditions apparently minimizes herbicide losses by photodecomposition and volatility, thereby facilitating good trifluralin efficacy the following season.

Keywords

Trifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminegreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. # SETLUwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Grandin’ and Triticum turgidum L. var. durum ‘Lloyd.’No-tillrotary hoesweep plowundercutterSetaria viridisSetaria glaucaTriticum turgidumSETVISETLU
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 703 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.Google Scholar
2. Blackshaw, R E., Stobbe, E. H., and Sturko, A.R.W. 1981. Effects of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 29:212–217.Google Scholar
3. Blackshaw, R. E., Stobbe, E. H., Shaykewich, C. F., and Woodbury, W. 1981. Influence of soil temperature and soil moisture on green foxtail (Setaria viridis) establishment in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 29:179–184.Google Scholar
4. Carefoot, J. M., Nyborg, M., and Lindwall, C. W. 1990. Tillage-induced soil changes and related grain yield in a semi-arid region. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:203–214.Google Scholar
5. Christie, E. D. and Detling, J. J. 1982. Analysis of interference between C3 and C4 grasses in relation to temperature and soil nitrogen supply. Ecology 63:1277–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Conservation Tillage Information Center. 1991. National survey of conservation tillage practices. Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Dist., Ft. Wayne, IN. 54 p.Google Scholar
7. Dexter, A. G., Nalewaja, J. D., Rasmussen, D. D., and Buchli, J. 1981. Survey of wild oats and other weeds in North Dakota in 1978 and 1979. North Dakota Res. Rep. 79. 80 p.Google Scholar
8. Gerwing, P. D. and McKercher, R. B. 1992. The relative persistence of trifluralin (545 EC and 5G) and ethalfluralin in prairie soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 72:255–262.Google Scholar
9. Griffith, D. R., Mannering, J. V., and Box, J. E. 1986. Soil moisture management with reduced tillage. p. 19–57 in Sprague, M. A. and Triplett, G. B., eds., No-tillage and Surface Tillage Agriculture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
10. Hollingsworth, E. B. 1980. Volatility of trifluralin from field soil. Weed Sci. 28:224–228.Google Scholar
11. Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37:239–249.Google Scholar
12. Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1982. Fall applications of triallate and trifluralin, 1981–82. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:124.Google Scholar
13. Morrison, I. N., Nawolsky, K. M., Entz, M. H., and Smith, A. E. 1991. Differences among certified wheat seedlots in response to trifluralin. Agron. J. 83:119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Nalewaja, J. D., Peterson, D. E., Thompson, C. R., and Riveland, N. R. 1986. Preemergence weed control in wheat. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:93.Google Scholar
15. Peterson, D. E., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition with spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 6:291–296.Google Scholar
16. Peterson, D. E. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Environment influences green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition with wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 6:607–610.Google Scholar
17. Savage, K. E. and Jordan, T. N. 1980. Persistence of three dinitroaniline herbicides on the soil surface. Weed Sci. 28:105–110.Google Scholar
18. Sloneker, L. L. and Moldenhauer, W. C. 1977. Measuring the amount of crop residue remaining after tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32:231–236.Google Scholar
19. Smika, D. E. 1990. Fallow management practices for wheat production in the Central Great Plains. Agron. J. 82:319–323.Google Scholar
20. Van Doren, D. M. Jr. and Allmaras, R. R. 1978. Effect of residue management practices on the soil physical environment, microclimate, and plant growth. p. 49–83 in Oschwald, W. R., ed., Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
21. Vanden Born, W. H. 1971. Green foxtail: seed dormancy, germination, and growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 51:53–59.Google Scholar
22. Whitfield, C. J., Bond, J. J., Greb, B. W., McCalla, T. M., and Siddoway, F. H. 1962. A standardized procedure for residue sampling. Agric. Res. Serv. 41–68. U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
23. Wicks, G. A. 1985. Weed control in conservation tillage systems—small grains. p. 77–100 in Wiese, A. F., ed., Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
24. Williams, J. L. Jr. and Wicks, G. A. 1978. Weed control problems associated with crop residue systems. p. 165–172 in Oschwald, W. R., ed., Crop Residue Management Systems. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
25. Wright, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1965. Photochemical decomposition of trifluralin. Weeds 13:329–331.Google Scholar
26. Zollinger, R. K., Berglund, D. R., Dahl, G. K., Ahrens, W. H., Lym, R. G., Messersmith, C. G., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1994. 1995 Agricultural Weed Control Guide. North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Serv. Circ. W-253 (Revised), Fargo. 93 p.Google Scholar