Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T01:42:49.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of Several Legumes to Residual Imazapyr Applied Under Greenhouse Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2017

Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
John D. Byrd Jr.
Affiliation:
Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
David P. Russell
Affiliation:
Extension Associate II, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro, Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762. (E-mail: mmz22@msstate.edu)

Abstract

Control of noxious weeds such as cogongrass depend heavily on chemical treatment, but success is limited unless integrated with other practices. Utilization of cover crops in the system is ideal to avoid the use of excess herbicide and replace vegetation that will resist cogongrass reinvasion. Greenhouse studies were conducted from 2013 through 2015 at Mississippi State University with the objective to evaluate ‘AG4934’ RR/STS soybean, Korean lespedeza, crimson clover and ‘Durana’ white clover tolerance to soil-applied imazapyr at selected rates and various planting times after application. Plastic containers filled with a mixture of 2:1 sand:topsoil were treated with imazapyr at 0, 70, 140 and 280 g ae ha–1. Legume species were planted 0, 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment (MAT). The factorial experimental design included legume species, imazapyr rate and planting time. At 6 weeks after each planting, the number of seedlings, average plant height and shoot biomass were measured. Statistical analysis revealed the imazapyr rate x planting time interaction was significant with respect to number of emerged seedlings, average height and shoot biomass per plant for each species. It was observed that the legumes planted at 0 MAT of imazapyr at 70 g ae ha–1 or higher reduced emerged seedlings, average height and biomass production. In general, seeds planted 1 MAT or later in combination with these same herbicide rates, showed less growth reductions than treatments seeded 0 MAT. In conclusion, sites treated with imazapyr rates from 70 to 280 g ae ha–1 for weed control, should not be seeded with legume ground covers less than 1 month after treatment to reduce emergence failure, plant height and biomass production.

Type
Weed Management-Techniques
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Ball, DM, Hoveland, CS Lacefield, GD (2007) Southern Forages: Modern Concepts for Forage Crop Management. 4th edn. Norcross, GA: International Plant Nutrition Institute. 322 pGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JW, Byrd, JD Mask, DB (2001) Evaluation of 23 herbicides for control of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Proc South Weed Sci Soc 54, 63 Google Scholar
Bovey, RW Senseman, SA (1998) Response of food and forage crops to soil-applied imazapyr. Weed Sci 46:614617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, RM (1989) Review of literature on Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel with particular reference to South East Asia. Trop Pest Manag 35:1225 Google Scholar
Burns, BK (2006) Control of Invasive Grasses. MS thesis. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University. 85 pGoogle Scholar
Byrd, JD (2007) What works on cogongrass and what does not: a summary of nearly 10 years of cogongrass research in Mississippi. Pages 28–31 in Loewenstein NJ, Miller JH, eds. Regional Cogongrass Conference: A Cogongrass Management Guide Confronting the Cogongrass Crisis Across the South. Mobile, AL: Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Auburn UniversityGoogle Scholar
Dickens, R Buchanan, GA (1975) Control of cogongrass with herbicides. Weed Sci 23:194197 Google Scholar
Dozier, H, Gaffney, JF, McDonald, SK, Johnson, ERRL Shilling, DG (1998) Cogongrass in the United States: history, ecology, impacts, and management. Weed Technol 12:737743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO (1990) Overview of herbicide mechanisms of action. Environ Health Perspect 87:263271 Google Scholar
Duke, SO Dayan, FE (2011) Plant Systems | Bioactivity of Herbicides. Pages 23–25 in Moo-Young M, ed. Comprehensive Biotechnology. 2nd edn. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Google Scholar
Franklin, KA (2009) Light and temperature signal crosstalk in plant development. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:6368 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartwig, NL Ammon, HU (2002) Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci 50:688699 Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Pancho, JV Herberger, JP (1991) The World’s Worst Weed: Distribution and Biology [reprint]. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 609 pGoogle Scholar
Hurst, GA (1987) Vegetative responses to imazapyr for pine release. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 40:247 Google Scholar
Johnson, ERRL, Gaffney, JF Shilling, DG (1997) Revegetation as a part of an integrated management approach for the control of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Proc South Weed Sci Soc 50:141 Google Scholar
Loux, MM Reese, KD (1993) Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol 7:452458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, GE (2004) Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) - biology, ecology, and management. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:367380 Google Scholar
MacDonald, GE, Johnson, ERRL, Shilling, DG, Miller, DL Brecke, BJ (2002) The use of imazapyr and imazapic for cogongrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.] control. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 55:110 Google Scholar
Miller, JH (2007) The Context of the South’s Cogongrass Crisis. Pages 6–9 in Loewenstein NJ, Miller JH, eds. Regional Cogongrass Conference: A Cogongrass Management Guide Confronting the Cogongrass Crisis Across the South. Mobile, AL: Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Auburn UniversityGoogle Scholar
Nelson, KA, Renner, KA Penner, D (1998) Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox and imazethapyr. Weed Sci 46:587594 Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2013) Base SAS ® 9.4 Procedures Guide: Statistical Procedures . 2nd edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (1989) Factors Affecting Soil and Foliar Bioavailability of Imidazolinones. American Cyanamid Company Handout FHT-D269-2M-8902. 24 pGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DR, Watkins, RM Cole, AW (2001) Forage Species Tolerance to Imazapyr and Imazapic. Mississippi State, MS: MAFES Mississippi Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 1106. 17 pGoogle Scholar
Shilling, DG Gaffney, JF (1995) Cogongrass control requires integrated approach (Florida). Restor Manag Notes 13:227 Google Scholar
Udensi, UE, Akobundu, IO, Ayeni, AO Chikoye, D (1999) Management of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) with velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) and herbicides. Weed Technol 13:201208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulbrich, AV, Souza, JRP Shaner, D (2005) Persistence and carryover effect of imazapic and imazapyr in Brazilian cropping systems. Weed Technol 19:986991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willard, TR, Gaffney, JF Shilling, DG (1997) Influence of herbicide combinations and application technology on cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) control. Weed Technol 11:7680 Google Scholar
Wixson, MB Shaw, DR (1992) Effects of soil-applied AC263,222 on crop rotated with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 6:276279 Google Scholar