Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T16:53:43.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Plant Growth Stage on Chlorsulfuron Suppression of Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Shoots and Roots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Nancy K. Zuris ,
Robert G. Wilson  and
Lenis A. Nelson
Nancy K. Zuris
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Lenis A. Nelson
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted to evaluate the performance of chlorsulfuron {2-chloro-N-[[4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide} applied to established Canada thistle plants [Cirsium arvense L. scop. # CIRAR] in the spring or fall to young vegetative shoots, and in June to plants in the bud growth stage. Canada thistle shoot densities measured in the spring following chlorsulfuron applications the previous year were lower when chlorsulfuron was applied in the bud and fall growth stage as compared to applications made in the spring to young vegetative shoots. Suppression of Canada thistle shoots from chlorsulfuron application during the bud and fall growth stage increased with rate, and was greatest at 269 g ai/ha. Chlorsulfuron applied at 269 g/ha at the fall growth stage only partially controlled the root system of Canada thistle.

Keywords

Growth stageroot systemCIRAR
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 10 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Arny, A. C. 1932. Variations in the organic reserves in underground parts of five perennial weeds from late April to November. Minn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 84.Google Scholar
2. Bakker, D. 1960. A comparative life history of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop, and Tussilago farfara (L.), the most troublesome weeds in newly reclaimed polders of the former Zuiderzee. Pages 202–205 in Harper, J. L., ed. The Biology of Weeds. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford, England.Google Scholar
3. Chancellor, R. J. 1970. Biological background to the control of three perennial broadleaved weeds. Proc. Br. Weed Contr. Conf. 3:1114–1120.Google Scholar
4. Hamdoun, A. M. 1972. Regenerative capacity of root fragments of [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.]. Weed Res. 12:128–136.Google Scholar
5. Hensen, M. A., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1982. The effect of chlorsulfuron on winter wheat yield and Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.] control. Abstr. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 35:118.Google Scholar
6. Hodgson, J. M. 1968. The nature, ecology, and control of Canada thistle. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1386.Google Scholar
7. Hodgson, J. M. 1969. The response of Canada thistle ecotypes to 2,4-D, amitrole, and intensive cultivation. Weed Sci. 18:253–255.Google Scholar
8. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
9. Hunter, J. H. 1975. Control of Canada thistle with glyphosate. Res. Rep., Expert Committee on Weeds (Western Canada) 22:571–572.Google Scholar
10. Kossatz, V. C., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1980. Canada thistle root kill by DPX 4189. Res. Rep., Expert Committee on Weeds (Western Canada) 27:73.Google Scholar
11. Levitt, G. 1983. Sulfonylureas: New high potency herbicides. Pages 243–250 in Pesticide Chemistry. Pergamon-Press Publications, New York.Google Scholar
12. Levitt, G., Ploeg, H. L., Weigel, R. C. Jr., and Fitzgerald, D. J. 1981. 2-chloro-N-[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) aminocarbonyl] benzenesulfonamide a new herbicide. J. Agric. Food Chem. 29:416–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Messersmtih, C. G., and Lym, R. G. 1980. Herbicide evaluation for Canada thistle and prickly lettuce control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control. Conf. 37:63.Google Scholar
14. McAllister, R. S., and Haderlie, L. C., 1981. Canada thistle root anatomy and root bud dormancy. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 36:157–160.Google Scholar
15. Miller, S. D., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1980. DPX-4189 for weed control in small grain and fallow. Proc. North Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 34:37–39.Google Scholar
16. Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 13. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:1033–1048.Google Scholar
17. O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. C., Weiss, G. M., and Dew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:725–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Palm, H. L., Riggleman, J. D., and Allison, D. A. 1980. Worldwide review of the new cereal herbicide–DPX 4189. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 2:1–6.Google Scholar
19. Prentiss, A. M. 1889. On root propagation of Canada thistle. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 15:190–192.Google Scholar
20. Tennant, D. A. 1975. Test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 63:995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Welton, F. A., Morris, V. H., and Harzler, A. S. 1929. Organic food reserves in relation to the eradication of Canada thistles. Ohio Exp. Stn. Bull. 441:1–25.Google Scholar
22. Wilson, R. G. Jr., 1979. Germination and seedling development of Canada thistle. Weed Sci. 27:146–151.Google Scholar