Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:11:43.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Selective Nimblewill (Muhlenbergia schreberi) Control in Cool-Season Turfgrass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John B. Willis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 435 Old Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060
Josh B. Beam
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 435 Old Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060
Whitnee L. Barker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 435 Old Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060
Shawn D. Askew*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 435 Old Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA 24060
J. Scott McElroy
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: saskew@vt.edu

Abstract

Isoxaflutole and mesotrione have been used to control creeping bentgrass in cool season turf, these experiments evaluate these two products for selective nimblewill control. Three experiments were conducted in Virginia and Tennessee to evaluate selective control options for nimblewill in cool-season turfgrass. Single applications of isoxaflutole control nimblewill more effectively than single applications of mesotrione. Nimblewill control 8 wk after initial treatment (WAIT) increased as mesotrione rates increased from 28 to 280 g ai/ha, and isoxaflutole rates increased from 28 to 168 g/ha. Isoxaflutole at 84 and 168 g/ha were the only single application treatments that controlled nimblewill greater than 80% 8 WAIT. However, sequential applications of isoxaflutole and mesotrione at 28 g/ha, 10 d apart controlled nimblewill 94 and 80%, respectively 8 WAIT. Triclopyr and fenoxaprop-p did not effectively control nimblewill and caused unacceptable turfgrass injury. Long-term control was not evaluated in these studies. However, it was concluded that isoxaflutole and mesotrione at appropriate rates and applied in sequence selectively control nimblewill without harming desirable turf.

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

Askew, S. D. and Hipkins, P. L. 2006. Pest management guide for home grounds and animals—lawn weeds section. Pages 144153. in. Virginia Pest Management Guide—Bulletin 456-018.Google Scholar
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. C. 1985. Dormancy breaking and germination requirements of nimble will (Mulenbergia schreberi Gmel.) seeds. J. of Range Manage. 38:513515.Google Scholar
Beam, J. B., Barker, W. L., and Askew, S. D. 2006. Selective creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) control in cool-season turfgrass. Weed Technol. 20:340344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Drohen, J. A. 2001. Differential response of cool-season turfgrass species to isoxaflutole. Int. Turf. Soc. Res. J. 9:9951000.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Riego, D. C. 2003. Management alternatives for glyphosate resistant creeping bentgrass. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 57:114.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Elmore, C. L., Gibeault, V. A., and Rents, J. S. 1997. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) management in cool-season turfgrass. Weed Technol. 11:478483.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 3738. in Camper, N.D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Giese, M. S., Keese, R. J., Christians, N. E., and Gaussoin, R. E. 2005. Mesotrione:a potential selective post-emergence herbicide for turf grass. Pages 100101. in Thorogood, D. ed. ITS Annexe-Technical papers. Volume 10. International Turfgrass Society.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. and Carrow, R. N. 1995. Influence of fenoxaprop and ethofumesate treatments on control of common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) turf. Weed Technol. 9:789793.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Christians, N. E. 2005. Mesotrione kills creeping bentgrass in Kentucky bluegrass. Pages 50. in. Agronomy abstracts CD-ROM. Madison, WI ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.Google Scholar
Keese, R. J., Driver, J., and Cox, D. 2005. Mesotrione: a new herbicide active ingredient for weed control in turfgrass. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 59:103.Google Scholar
Kobeck, K., Focke, M., and Lichtenthaler, H. K. 1988. Fatty-acid biosynthesis and acetyl-CoA carboxylase as a target of diclofop, fenoxaprop and other aryloxyphenoxypropionic acid herbicides. Z. Naturforsch. 43c:4754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, C. H., Stritzke, J. F., and Cummings, D. C. 2002. Control of Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) with triclopyr, fluroxypyr, and metsulfuron. Weed Technol. 16:893900.Google Scholar
Kohler, E. A., Throssell, C. S., and Reicher, Z. J. 2004. Ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea) populations respond differently to 2,4-D or triclopyr. Weed Technol. 18:566574.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combinded experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. D., Bartlett, D. W., Fraser, T. E., Hawkes, T. R., Holt, D. C., Townson, J. K., and Wichert, R. A. 2001. Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest. Manag. Sci. 57:120128.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallett, K. E., Little, J. P., Sheekey, M., and Veerasekaran, P. 1998. The mode of action of isoxaflutole, I. physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. and Physiol. 62:113.Google Scholar
Smith, M. and Martin, C. E. 1987. Growth and morphological response to irradiance in three forest understory species of the C4 grass genus Mulenbergia . Bot. Gaz. 148:141148.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 434436.Google Scholar
Willis, J. B., Askew, S. D., and McElroy, J. S. 2005a. Selective nimblewill (Muhlenbergia schreberi) control in cool-season turfgrass. Proc. Weed Science Soc. America 45:30.Google Scholar
Willis, J. B., Beam, J. B., Barker, W. L., and Askew, S. D. 2004. Nimblewill control with Dazomet. American Society of Agronomy. Pages 49. in. Agronomy abstracts CD-ROM. Madison, WI ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.Google Scholar
Willis, J. B., Beam, J. B., Barker, W. L., and Askew, S. D. 2006. Weed control options in spring-seeded tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Weed Technol. 20:10401046.Google Scholar
Willis, J. B., Ricker, D. B., Askew, S. D., and Keese, R. J. 2005b. Bermudagrass control with mesotrione and potential synergists. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 59:89.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J. R., Johnson, W. S., and Lewis, S. R. 2002. Nimblewill control in Nevada Lawns. http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/FS02/FS0242.pdf. Accessed: March 28, 2007.Google Scholar