Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T17:10:14.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Relationship of Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) Stage of Growth to Quinclorac Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph E. Zawierucha
Affiliation:
Technical Representative, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Donald Penner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pennerd@msu.edu.

Abstract

Goosegrass is considered tolerant to quinclorac. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a stage of growth at which it was susceptible. Stage of growth studies with goosegrass were conducted that evaluated quinclorac activity at rates of 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 kg ai/ha applied with 1% (v/v) Merge spray adjuvant. Quinclorac application stages evaluated included preemergence and one- to two-leaf, four- to five-leaf, and one- to two-tiller stage. The effects of root uptake from postemergence applications were also evaluated by comparing treatments with and without a vermiculite soil barrier. Goosegrass was more susceptible to quinclorac when applied preemergence or early postemergence at the one- to two-leaf stage than at later more mature stages. The importance of root uptake on quinclorac activity was also observed, particularly at the four- to five-leaf stage, where the dose required to reduce growth 50% (GR50) in the absence of the soil barrier was 3.4 kg/ha vs. 16 kg/ha in the presence of a barrier. At the most advanced growth stage of one to two tillers, calculated GR50 values were greater than 16 kg/ha whether a soil barrier was present or not. The lowest calculated GR50 value of 2.7 kg/ha for the one- to two-leaf stage with no soil barrier was still approximately 3.5 times higher than the maximum labeled rate for turfgrass.

Type
Research
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

Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. St Paul, MN: West Publishing. pp. 108124, 327-332.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1988. BAS 514 Technical Review. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. 4 p.Google Scholar
Chism, W. S., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6: 898903.Google Scholar
Engel, R. E. and Ilnicki, R. D. 1969. Turf weeds and their control. In Hanson, A. A. and Juska, F. V., eds. Turfgrass Science. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. pp. 240287.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K. 1998. Quinclorac belongs to a new class of highly selective auxin herbicides. Weed Sci. 46: 707716.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pluncknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. pp. 4753.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
Watschke, T. L., Dernoeden, P. H., and Shetlar, D. J. 1995. Managing Turfgrass Pests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 47, 84-85.Google Scholar
Zawierucha, J. E. 1999. Basis for the Differential Response of Several Weed Species to Quinclorac. . Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI. 98 p.Google Scholar