Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T04:51:57.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) Control in Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) Pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Paul Mislevy*
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research Education Center, University of Florida, IFAS, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865-9706
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
West Florida Research Education Center, University of Florida, IFAS, 4253 Experiment Drive, Highway 182, Jay, FL 32565-0524
Frank G. Martin
Affiliation:
Statistics Department, University of Florida, IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32611-0339
Stephan L. Hatch
Affiliation:
S. M. Tracy Herbarium, Department Rangeland Ecology and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2126
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pmis@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu.

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1989 and 1990 to evaluate seasonal effects of herbicide application, smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) growth stage, and herbicide rate on smutgrass control. The experimental design was a split–split plot, with season (late spring, midsummer, and fall) as the whole plot, physiological stage at application (uncut, 15-, and 30-cm regrowth) the subplot, and hexazinone rate (0.0, 0.56, 0.84, and 1.12 kg ai/ha) as the sub-subplot treatment. Whole plots were arranged in three randomized complete blocks. Smutgrass control for the mean of the hexazinone treatments (1989 and 1990) was 95%. Application of 0.56 kg/ha hexazinone during late spring, midsummer, and fall seasons provided 77, 92, and 92% smutgrass control, respectively. Generally, the influence of plant stage at time of hexazinone application had no effect (P > 0.05) on smutgrass control. At 20 d after treatment (DAT), hexazinone had injured bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) plants by yellowing them, but the plants reverted to their usual dark green color by 40 DAT. Total nonstructural carbohydrates were lower for the 30-cm regrowth than for the uncut plants, regardless of season; however, 30-cm regrowth had little effect on smutgrass control.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Currey, W. L., Parrado, R., and Jones, D. W. 1973. Seed characteristics of Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii). Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla Proc. 32:5354.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Misc. Publ. 200. 1051 p.Google Scholar
McCaleb, J. E. and Hodges, E. M. 1971. Smutgrass control at Range Cattle Station, Ona, Florida. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:182186.Google Scholar
McCaleb, J. E., Hodges, E. M., and Kirk, W. G. 1966. Smutgrass control. Fla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. S-149. 10 p.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P. and Currey, W. L. 1980. Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control in south Florida. Weed Sci. 28:316320.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Currey, W. L., and Brecke, B. J. 1980. Herbicide and cultural practices in smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control. Weed Sci. 28:585588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, P., Mullahey, J. J., and Martin, F. G. 1999. Pre-herbicide mowing and herbicide rate on tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) control. Weed Technol. 13:172175.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. 1944. A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for the determination of glucose. J. Biol. Chem. 153:375380.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1985. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Ver. 6, 5th ed, Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Smith, D. 1981. Removing and analyzing total nonstructural carbohydrates from plant tissue. Wise. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. Rep. 2107. 14 p.Google Scholar
Somogyi, M. 1945. A new reagent for the determination of sugars. J. Biol. Chem. 160:6168.Google Scholar