Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:11:09.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) Biotype Response to Sethoxydim and Haloxyfop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Elifas N. Alcantara ,
Donald L. Wyse  and
Joseph M. Spitzmueller
Elifas N. Alcantara
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Joseph M. Spitzmueller
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crown bud, tiller, and rhizome development was studied in 10 quackgrass biotypes at two stages (three-to four- and seven- to eight-leaf stages) of development to determine if differential development of these structures influenced control with sethoxydim and haloxyfop. There was a differential response among the 10 biotypes to both sethoxydim and haloxyfop at both stages of development. The biotypes differed in the number of crown buds, tillers, and rhizomes that formed at both stages of development. In the three- to four-leaf stage, the biotypes with the greatest number of crown buds were the most difficult to control. These results suggest that in the susceptible stage (three-to four-leaf) the quackgrass biotypes with the least number of crown buds will be the easiest to control; however, by the time all the biotypes reach the seven- to eight-leaf stage even the biotypes with the lowest number of crown buds have enough crown buds that they become difficult to control with either sethoxydim or haloxyfop.

Keywords

Quackgrass. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. # AGRREsethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-onehaloxyfop, 2-[4-[[3-chloro-5-trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl] oxy] phenoxy] propanoic acidCrown budsleaf stagetillersrhizomes
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 107 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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

1. Buchholtz, K. P. 1958. Variations in the sensitivity of clones of quackgrass to dalapon. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 15:18–19.Google Scholar
2. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Grays Manual of Botany. 8th ed. American Book Co., New York. 1632 pp.Google Scholar
3. Haddad, S. Y. and Sagar, G.R.A. 1968. A study of the response of four clones of [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.] to root and shoot application of aminotriazole and dalapon. Proc. 9th Br. Weed Control Conf. 9:142–148.Google Scholar
4. Hakansson, S. 1969. Experiments with [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.]. VI. Rhizome orientation and life length of broken rhizomes in the soil, and reproductive capacity of different underground shoot parts. Ann. Agric. Coll. Sweden [Lantbrukshogskolans Annaler] 35:869–894.Google Scholar
5. Holly, K. and Chancellor, R. J. 1960. The response of Agropyron repens to aminotriazole. Proc. 5th Br. Weed Control Conf. 301–309.Google Scholar
6. Ivany, J. A. 1975. Effects of glyphosate application at different growth stages on quackgrass control. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:861–863.Google Scholar
7. Kells, J. J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci. 32:143–149.Google Scholar
8. Neuteboom, J. H. 1975. Variability of Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. Syn Agropyron repens (L.) P.B. on Dutch agricultural soils. Meded. Landbouwhogesch Wageningen 75:1–29.Google Scholar
9. Neuteboom, J. H. 1980. Variability of couch (Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv). In grasslands and arable fields in two localities in the Netherlands. Acta Bot. Neerl. 29(5/6) 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Rioux, R., Bandeen, J. B., and Anderson, G. W. 1974. Effects of growth stage on translocation of glyphosate in quackgrass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 54:397–401.Google Scholar
11. Sampson, M. G. 1987. Quackgrass biotypes. In Technical Proc. Quackgrass Action Committee Workshop, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Can. Google Scholar
12. Stoltenberg, D. and Wyse, D. L. 1986. Regrowth of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) following postemergence applications of haloxyfop and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 34:664–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Waldecker, M. A. and Wyse, D. L. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with BAS 9052 OH, KK-80, and RO-13-8895. Weed Sci. 32:67–75.Google Scholar
14. Werner, P. A. and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:905–919.Google Scholar
15. Westra, P. H. and Wyse, D. L. 1981. Growth and development of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotypes. Weed Sci. 29:44–52.Google Scholar
16. Williams, E. D. 1973. Variation on growth of seedlings and clones of Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 13:24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wyse, D. L. and Spitzmueller, J. 1984. Quackgrass control in soybeans with sethoxydim, fluazifop, and haloxyfop – a three year summary. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:28.Google Scholar