Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:15:48.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Competition of giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) in a bahiagrass pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Jeffrey Mullahey
Affiliation:
West Florida REC, University of Florida, Milton, FL 32583
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Fritz M. Roka
Affiliation:
Southwest Florida REC, University of Florida, Immokalee, FL 34142

Abstract

Field experiments were established in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate the effect of giant smutgrass competition and hexazinone application on bahiagrass forage yield. The experimental design was a split-plot, with low (< 20% groundcover), medium (20 to 70% groundcover), and high (> 70% groundcover) giant smutgrass density as the main plot factors and hexazinone application or no hexazinone application as the subplot factors. In 1998, without hexazinone, bahiagrass biomass accumulation was 1,164 kg ha−1 mo−1 under low giant smutgrass infestation but 590 and 154 kg ha−1 mo−1 under medium and high giant smutgrass densities, respectively. From harvests occurring 1 yr after hexazinone application, bahiagrass yield in the weed-free area was similar to that growing under low giant smutgrass density. However, as giant smutgrass density increased to moderate or high levels, bahiagrass yield was reduced relative to the weed free. Giant smutgrass biomass accumulation was also measured over time. Giant smutgrass biomass, in both years, increased dramatically in the late summer months at the medium and high densities but not at the low density. It was concluded that bahiagrass was competing with the giant smutgrass at low density and depressed late season growth but was not capable of doing so at higher infestation levels. A rapid increase in late-season giant smutgrass growth was partially explained by the fact that bahiagrass is a short day plant that begins to flower in mid- to late summer, and aboveground biomass production decreases in late summer. This shift in carbon allocation in bahiagrass would exert less competition on giant smutgrass and thus partially be responsible for the late season increase in giant smutgrass growth. Economic analysis performed on these data illustrated that a net loss of $15.20 per stocking unit (cow–calf pairs) would be realized if hexazinone were used to control low densities of giant smutgrass. However, a net gain of $29.28 and $55.75 per stocking unit was observed if hexazinone was used to control giant smutgrass that had reached medium or high levels of infestation, respectively. It was concluded from these data that giant smutgrass should not be controlled until densities reach approximately 35% infestation.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
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

Adjei, M. B., Mullahey, J. J., Mislevy, P., and Kalmbacher, R. S. 2003. Smutgrass control in perennial grass pastures. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service SS-AGR-18. 4 p.Google Scholar
Blount, A. R., Sinclair, T. R., Gates, R. N., Quesenberry, K. H., and Littell, R. C. 2001. Photoperiod response in ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass. Pages 487488 in Gomide, J. A., Maltos, W.R.S., and da Silva, S. C. eds. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Grasslands Congress, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil: Brazilian Society of Animal Husbandry (FEALQ).Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1981. Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) pastures. Weed Sci 29:553555.Google Scholar
Currey, W. L., Parrado, R., and Jones, D. W. 1973. Seed characteristics of smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii). Proc. Soil Crop Soc. Fla 32:5354.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Mullahey, J. J. 2006. Effect of mowing and hexazinone application on giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis) control. Weed Technol. In press.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Baur, J. R. 1979. Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control in pastures with herbicides. Weed Sci 27:361366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, P. and Currey, W. L. 1980. Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control in south Florida. Weed Sci 28:316320.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P. and Martin, F. G. 1985. Smutgrass control and subsequent forage production with fall application of dalapon. Proc. Soil Crop Soc. Fla 44:203205.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Currey, W. L., and Brecke, B. J. 1980. Herbicide and cultural practices in smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control. Weed Sci 28:585588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, P., Shilling, D. G., Martin, F. G., and Hatch, S. L. 1999. Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) control in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) pastures. Weed Technol 13:571575.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Sinclair, T. R., and Ray, J. D. 2001. Extended day length to increase fall/winter yields of warm-season perennial grasses. Pages 256257 in Gomide, J. A., Soares, W.R.S, and da Silva, S. C. eds. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Grasslands Congress, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil: Brazilian Society of Animal Husbandry (FEALQ).Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Pp. 104405.Google Scholar
Rathmann, D. P. and Miller, S. D. 1981. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 29:410414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, B. K. and Jacobs, S. W. L. 1999. Revision of the genus Sporobolus in Australia. Aust. Syst. Bot 16:165176.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. 1982. Chemical control of smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii). Weed Sci 30:231234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vengris, J. and Stacewicz-Sapuncakis, M. 1971. Common purslane competition in table beets and snap beans. Weed Sci 19:46.Google Scholar