Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T05:19:39.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat and Wild Oat Response to Flufenprop-methyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Wayne A. Olson  and
John D. Nalewaja
Wayne A. Olson
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND, 58102
John D. Nalewaja
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND, 58102
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L. ‘Waldron’) and wild oat (Avena fatua L.) to various rates of flufenprop-methyl {methyl-2-[benzoyl(3-chloro-4-fluorophenyl)amino]propanoate} applied weekly after wheat and wild oat emergence was determined under field conditions. Wild oat control increased at all growth stages as flufenprop-methyl rate increased. Wild oat control was greater than 80% with flufenprop-methyl at all rates when applied up to 6 weeks after wild oat emergence: (anthesis stage), but decreased when application was delayed further. Wheat was most susceptible to flufenprop-methyl during anthesis. Flufenprop-methyl at 0.56 kg/ha injured weed-free wheat only at the boot and anthesis stages. Injury intensity and the number of weeks that injury remained evident increased as flufenprop-methyl rate increased. Flufenprop-methyl injury to wheat was expressed as reduced plant height, grain yield, and kernels per spike and increased grain protein. Plant height reductions were attributed to reduced cell elongation. Grain yield reductions resulted from reduced kernels per spike.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 355 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. American Association of Cereal Chemists. 1972. UDY dye method. Pages 1–3 in American Association of Cereal Chemists Approved Methods. Vol. 1, Method 46–14A.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. Summary. 1974. Page 2 in Report on Wild Oat Work-shop. Feb. 14–15. Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
3. Association of Official Seed Analysts. 1970. Rules for testing seeds. Pages 100–102 in Proc. of the Assoc., of Off. Seed Analysits. Vol. 60, No. 2.Google Scholar
4. Friesen, H.A., VandenBorn, W.H., Keys, C.H., Dryden, R.D., Molberg, E.S., and Simons, B. 1968. Effects of time of application and dosage of dicamba on the tolerance of wheat, oats, and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 48:213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gompf, L.W. 1974. WL-29761 for post-emergence control of wild oats in wheat in Western Canada. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 29:44–45.Google Scholar
6. Holmes, H.M., and Pfeiffer, R.K. 1962. Some aspects of the use of barban for wild oat control in winter wheat. Weed Res. 2:110–121.Google Scholar
7. Miller, J.F., Rogers, K.J., and Lucken, K.A. 1975. Effect of field production techniques on hybrid wheat seed quality. Crop Sci. 15:329–332.Google Scholar
8. Miller, S.D., and Nalewaja, J.D. 1973. Wild oat control with SD-26624, SD-29761, and SD-29762. Proc. North Cenr. Weed Control Conf. 28:100–102.Google Scholar
9. Olson, P.J., Zalik, S., Breakey, W.J., and Brown, D.A. 1951. Sensitivity of wheat and barley at different stages of growth to treatment with 2,4-D. Agron. J. 43:77–83.Google Scholar
10. Peterson, R.F. 1975. The wheat plant and its morphological development. Pages 17–34 in Peterson, R.F., Wheat-botany, cultivation, and utilization. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
11. Pinthus, M.J., and Matowitz, Y. 1967. Response of spring wheat to the application of 2,4-D at various growth stages. Weed Res. 7:95–101.Google Scholar
12. Shaw, W.C., and Willand, C.J. 1949. Effect of 2,4-D on Thorne wheat at 9 stages of growth. Res. Rep. North Centr. Weed Control Conf. 6:74.Google Scholar