Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:50:42.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glufosinate Efficacy on Annual Weeds Is Influenced by Rate and Growth Stage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gregory J. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crop Protection Research, Department of Crop Science, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
F. William Simmons
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
William H. Phillips II
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1993, 1994, and 1995 to determine the effects of glufosinate rate and application timing on giant foxtail, common lambsquarters, common cocklebur, and Pennsylvania smartweed control in absence of a crop. Glufosinate at 140 g ai/ha controlled less than 80% of the weed species evaluated. When glufosinate rate was increased to 420 g/ha and applied to 10-cm giant foxtail, control was greater than 80% all 3 yr of the study. Applications made to 10-cm plants resulted in 80% or greater control for common cocklebur all 3 yr and Pennsylvania smartweed 2 of the 3 yr with 420 and 560 g/ha, respectively. Common lambsquarters was the most tolerant species evaluated and was not consistently controlled acceptably (> 80%), even with glufosinate at rates of 560 g/ha. Control with glufosinate at 420 or 560 g/ha was most effective when applied at the 10-cm weed height compared either to the 5- or 15-cm weed height.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Ahmadi, M. S., Haderlie, L. C., and Wicks, G. A. 1980. Effect of growth stage and water stress on barnyardgrass (Echinchloa crus-galli) control and on glyphosate absorption and translocation. Weed Sci. 28:277282.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993a. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate–ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139147.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993b. The influence of soil moisture, simulated rainfall and time of application on the efficacy of glufosinate–ammonium. Weed Res. 33:149160.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 1985. Mode of action investigations with the herbicides HOE-39866 and SC-0224. Weed Sci. 33:779785.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Lyons, R. E., Scheckler, S. E., and Wilson, H. P. 1987. Cellular alterations resulting from foliar applications of HOE-39866. Weed Sci. 35:2735.Google Scholar
Carlson, K. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Comparative phytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0545, and HOE-0061. Weed Sci. 32:841844.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control with non-selective herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:884886.Google Scholar
King, C. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Application rate and timing of acifluorfen, bentazon, chlorimuron, and imazaquin. Weed Technol. 6:526534.Google Scholar
Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci. 30:520526.Google Scholar
Logusch, E. W., Walker, D. M., McDonald, J. F., and Franz, J. E. 1991. Inhibition of plant glutamine synthetases by substituted phosphinothricins. Plant Physiol. 95:10571062.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. 1980. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate in soybean (Glycine max) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 28:113118.Google Scholar
Mersey, B. G., Hall, J. C., Anderson, D. M., and Swanton, C. J. 1990. Factors affecting the herbicidal activity of glufosinate–ammonium: absorption. translocation, and metabolism in barley and green foxtail. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 37:9098.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Foy, C. L., and Crafts, A. S. 1967. Effects of relative humidity on absorption and translocation of foliarly applied dalapon. Weeds 15:149156.Google Scholar
Ridley, S. M. and McNally, S. F. 1985. Effects of phosphinothricin on the isoenzymes of glutamine synthetase isolated from plant species which exhibit varying degrees of susceptibility to the herbicide. Plant Sci. 39:3136.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Coble, H. D. 1981. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 29:480485.Google Scholar
Sauer, H., Wild, A., and Ruhle, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis II. The causes of inhibition of photosynthesis. Z. Naturforsch. 42:270278.Google Scholar
Shelp, B. J., Swanton, C. J., Mersey, B. G., and Hall, J. C. 1991. Glufosinate (phosphinothricin) inhibition of nitrogen metabolism in barley and green foxtail plants. J. Plant Physiol. 139:605610.Google Scholar
Wendler, C., Barniske, M., and Wild, A. 1990. Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and photorespiration of C3 and C4 plants. Photosyn. Res. 24:5561.Google Scholar
Wild, A., Sauer, H., and Ruhle, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis. I. Inhibition of photosynthesis and accumulation of ammonia. Z. Naturforsch. 42:263269.Google Scholar
Wild, A. and Wendler, C. 1993. Inhibitory action of glufosinate on photosynthesis. Z. Naturforsch. 48:369373.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1984. Toxicity and translocation of sethoxydim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) as affected by environment. Weed Sci. 32:2024.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531536.Google Scholar