Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T21:24:29.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Duration of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) competitiveness after herbicide treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Hugh J. Earl
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Abstract

Experiments were initiated to determine the amount of time required for postemergence herbicides to render yellow nutsedge physiologically noncompetitive. The rate of net CO2 assimilation (AN) was chosen as the response variable to describe competitiveness. Specifically, the time required after herbicide treatment for AN to drop to 50% of that of the untreated control (AN50) was determined. AN50 values for halosulfuron, imazapic, glyphosate, and MSMA were 1.6, 2.1, 3.2, and 3.3 d, respectively. An AN50 value was not calculated for bentazon because AN rapidly decreased below 50% but recovered to > 50% by 9 d after treatment (DAT). Stomatal conductance to water vapor (gs) declined similarly with AN over time for halosulfuron, imazapic, and glyphosate treatments. However, gs of MSMA-treated plants was near 95% of the untreated control, whereas AN declined to 35% 11 DAT. At 11 DAT, all aboveground biomass was removed, and plants were returned to the greenhouse, and regrowth was determined after an additional 14 d. Yellow nutsedge regrowth for halosulfuron, imazapic, glyphosate, and MSMA was below 5% of the untreated control and was not statistically different. However, regrowth from bentazon was 44% of the control. Therefore, bentazon was the least effective herbicide tested, whereas halosulfuron and imazapic were most effective for yellow nutsedge control.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
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

Devine, M., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 312 p.Google Scholar
Dorst, D. C. and Doll, J. D. 1980. The allelopathic effect of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) on corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 28:229233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, D. C., Doll, J. D., and Moody, K. 1980. Effect of live plant leaching and different residue sources on the allelopathy of Cyperus esculentus . Weed Sci 7:3439.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Earl, H. J., and Vencill, W. K. 2003. The effect of selected herbicides on CO2 assimilation, chlorophyll fluorescence and stomatal conductance of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci 51:2831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaze, N. C. 1987. Cultural and mechanical manipulation of Cyperus spp. Weed Technol 1:8283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Nester, P. R. 1997. Nutsedge control in peanut with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Weed Technol 11:714719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 125133.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds in and cotton. Weed Sci 39:575584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurt, R. T. and Vencill, W. K. 1994a. Evaluation of three imidazolinone herbicides for control of yellow and purple nutsedge in woody and herbaceous landscape plants. J. Environ. Hortic 12:131134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurt, R. T. and Vencill, W. K. 1994b. Phytotoxicity and nutsedge control in woody and herbaceous landscape plants with manage (MON12037). J. Environ. Hortic 12:135137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. G. 1992. Plants and Microclimate. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 148 p.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. 1987. Interference of interaction of purple nutsedge and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) in crops. Weed Technol 1:7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, F. C. and Benson, A. A. 1983. The mode of action of a herbicide. Johnsongrass and methanearsonic acid. Plant Physiol 71:235240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melton, R., Kelly, J., and Whitwell, T. 1989. Physiological response of hosta, daylily, and yellow nutsedge to bentazon. Hortscience 24:10091010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mine, A. and Matsunaka, S. 1975. Mode of action of bentazon: effect on photosynthesis. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 5:444450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mine, A., Miyakado, M., and Matsunaka, S. 1975. The mechanism of bentazon selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 5:566574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, W., Crabtree, G., and William, R. D. 1987. Herbicide action on purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol 1:9298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phatak, S. C., Callaway, M. B., and Vavrina, C. S. 1987. Biological control and its integration in weed management systems of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotondus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol 1:8491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Tames, R., Gesto, M. D. V., and Vieitez, E. 1973. Growth substances isolated from tubers and of Cyperus esculentus var. aureus . Physiol. Plant 28:195200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Mattheisen, R. L. 1975. Response of yellow nutsedge and soybeans to bentazon, glyphosate, and perfluidone. Weed Sci 23:215221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 310312.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1987. Description of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol 1:29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic. 141 p.Google Scholar