Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:31:35.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence Control of Spotted Spurge (Chamaesyce maculata) with Flumioxazin as Influenced by Formulation and Activation Moisture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn Wehtje ,
Q. Yang ,
Charles H. Gilliam ,
Anna-Marie Murphy  and
Jason Fausey
Glenn Wehtje*
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849
Q. Yang
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, 101 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, 101 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849
Anna-Marie Murphy
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, 101 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849
Jason Fausey
Affiliation:
Nufarm Americas, Inc., 111 West County Road 173, Fremont OH 43420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wehtjgr@auburn.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flumioxazin is commonly used in nursery production for PRE weed control. Container nursery producers are of the opinion that the granular formulation is less effective than the sprayable formulation. Under the hypothesis that the granular formulation may require more water for activation, an experiment was conducted to evaluate the interaction of flumioxazin formulation, rate, and activation moisture for PRE control of spotted spurge in a pine-bark substrate. Experiment consisted of a factorial arrangement of four experimental variables; flumioxazin formulation (granular and spray), and flumioxazin rate (0.28 and 0.42 kg ai ha−1), substrate moisture level at the time of application (dry, medium, and wet), and after-application irrigation level (a single irrigation at 0.6, 1.3, 2.5, and 5.1 cm). Treated pots were seeded with spotted spurge 2 d after the herbicide application, which was 1 d after the first irrigation. Control as indicated by spotted spurge counts and fresh weight was influenced only by flumioxazin rate and formulation. The sprayable formulation provided excellent control regardless of rate. Granular formulation was generally less effective, and additional activation moisture did not improve efficacy. Further studies were conducted with the granular formulation to determine the maximum separation distance between the spotted spurge seed and herbicide prills at which control is possible. Individual prills and spotted spurge seeds were placed on media surface at progressively increasing separation distances. Nonlinear regression of seedling survival data revealed that ≥99% control required a prill–seed separation of ≤5.2 mm. This prill–seed separation requirement is only marginally obtained with the current registered rate, i.e., 0.42 kg ai ha−1 or 168 kg product ha−1. The relationship between control and prill–seed separation distance cannot be manipulated by additional activation moisture. Inadequate contact between the spotted spurge seeds and the flumoioxazin-containing prills is likely the sole cause of inadequate control.

Flumioxazin es comúnmente usado en viveros para el control PRE de malezas. Productores de viveros de plantas en potes son de la opinión de que la formulación granular es menos efectiva que la formulación asperjable. Bajo la hipótesis de que la formulación granular requiere más agua para la activación, se realizó un experimento para evaluar la interacción de la formulación de flumioxazin, la dosis, y la humedad de activación para el control PRE de Chamaesyce maculata en sustrato de corteza de pino. El experimento consistió en una arreglo factorial de cuatro variables experimentales: formulación de flumioxazin (granular y aspersión), y dosis de flumioxazin (0.28 y 0.42 kg ai ha−1), nivel de humedad del sustrato al momento de la aplicación (seco, medio, y mojado), y el nivel de riego después de la aplicación (una sola aplicación a 0.6, 1.3, 2.5, y 5.1 cm). En los potes tratados se sembró C. maculata 2 d después de la aplicación del herbicida, la cual se realizó 1 d después del primer riego. El control de la maleza, determinado mediante conteos de plantas de C. maculata y peso fresco, fue influenciado solamente por la dosis y formulación de flumioxazin. La formulación asperjable brindó excelente control sin importar la dosis. La formulación granular generalmente fue menos efectiva, y la humedad adicional para activación no mejoró la eficacia. Se realizaron estudios adicionales con la formulación granular para determinar la distancia de separación máxima entre la semilla de C. maculata y los gránulos del herbicida a la cual el control es posible. Gránulos del herbicida y semillas de C. maculata individuales fueron puestos sobre una superficie de sustrato a distancias de separación progresivamente incrementales. Regresiones no-lineales con base en datos de supervivencia de plántulas revelaron que se requirió una separación entre el gránulo y la semilla de ≤5.2 mm para alcanzar ≥99% de control. Esta separación entre el gránulo y la semilla se obtiene solo marginalmente con la actual dosis registrada, i.e. 0.42 kg ai ha−1 o 168 kg de producto ha−1. La relación entre control y separación entre el gránulo y la semilla no puede ser manipulada con humedad adicional para activación. Contacto inadecuado entre las semillas de C. maculata y gránulos conteniendo flumioxazin es probablemente la única causa de control inadecuado.

Keywords

Flumioxazinspotted spurge, Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Small ‘EPHMA'Ornamental plant productionsoilless growth mediaherbicide persistenceherbicide leachingherbicide activation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 108 - 114
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

Altland, JE, Gilliam, CH, Wehtje, G (2003) Weed control in field nurseries. HortTechnol 13:9–17 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2009) SureGuard® 51WDG Specimen label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2009b) New formulation of BroadStar herbicide. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. 1 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2011) BroadStar® 0.25G Specimen label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Boger, P, Wakabayashi, K eds. (1999) Peroxidizing herbicides. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 405 pGoogle Scholar
Feeny, RW, Cole, RH (1964) Comparison of spray and granular formulations of several herbicides 1960–1963. Proc Northeast Weed Control Conf. 18:369–373 Google Scholar
Gorski, SF, Reiners, S, Ruizzo, MA (1989) Release rate of three herbicides from controlled release tablets. Weed Technol 3:369–352Google Scholar
Lowery, RF (1987) Granular formulations and applications. Pages 165–176 in McWhorter, CG, Gebhardt, MR, eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Richardson, RJ, Zandstra, NH (2006) Evaluation of flumioxazin and other herbicides for weed control in gladiolus. Weed Technol 20:394–398 Google Scholar
Scalla, R, Matringe, M (1994) Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase as herbicides: diphenyl ethers and related photobleaching herbicides. Rev Weed Sci 6:103–132 Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227 Google Scholar
Senseman SA ed. (2007) Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 200–202 and 231–234Google Scholar
Stamp RH Chandler AL (2006) Plant size, growing medium and herbicide application method, formulation and rate influence phytotoxicity of flumioxazin to Plumbago. Proc South Nursery Assoc 51:406–410 Google Scholar
Wehtje, GR, Gilliam, CH, Hajek, BF (1993) Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oxadiazon in container media and soil. HortScience 28:126–128 Google Scholar
Wehtje, GR, Gilliam, CH, Hajek, BF (1994) Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oryzalin in container media and soil. HortScience 28:126–128 Google Scholar
Wehtje, GR, Gilliam, CH, Marble, SC (2010) Interaction of prodiamine and flumioxazin for nursery weed control. Weed Technol 24:504–509 Google Scholar
Wehtje, GR, Gilliam, CH, Marble, SC (2012) Duration of flumioxazin-based weed control in container-grown nursery crops. Weed Technol 26:679–683 Google Scholar
Yang, Q, Gilliam, CH, Wehtje, GR, McElroy, JS, Sibley, JL, Chamberlain, J (2013) Effect of pre and post moisture level of preemergence control of hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta L.) with flumioxazin. J Environ Hort 31:49–53 Google Scholar