Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:57:29.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profitable, Effective Herbicides for Planting-Time Weed Control in No-till Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William W. Donald  and
Tony Prato
William W. Donald
Affiliation:
USDA, Agric. Res. Serv., formerly of USDA-ARS Biosciences Res. Lab. and Dep. Crop and Weed Sci., Norm Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Tony Prato
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ., Univ. Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

High herbicide costs and uncertainty about annual weed control at planting have limited adoption of no-till spring wheat production systems in the northern Great Plains. Chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron, and CGA-131036 at 10 to 20 g ai ha–1 plus nonionic surfactant generally controlled both emerged kochia and wild mustard equally well (>80%) whether or not combined with glyphosate at 250 g ha–1 plus nonionic surfactant. In two of three trials persistent phytotoxic residues of these sulfonylurea herbicides in soil controlled both weeds better in midseason and early summer 1 yr after treatment than did glyphosate, which has only foliar activity. While the absolute net returns of different treatments varied among herbicides, relative net returns were insensitive to changes in either herbicide or wheat price. Herbicide use tended to boost net returns for no-till spring wheat in years with good weather but depressed net returns in a drought year. Chlorsulfuron at 10 and 20 g ha–1 increased net returns in all three trials. Metsulfuron and combinations of either metsulfuron or chlorsulfuron with glyphosate had variable effects on net returns.

Keywords

Chlorsulfuron, 2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6 - methyl - 1,3,5 - triazin - 2 - yl)amino]carbonyl]benzenesulfonamideCGA-131036, 3-(6-methoxy - 4-methyl - 13,5 - triazin - 2 - yl)-1-[2-(2-chloroethoxy)phenylsulfonyl]ureaglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinemetsulfuron, 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl - 1,3,5 - triazin - 2 - yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidkochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. # KCHSCwild mustard, Sinapis arvensis L. # SINARspring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Wheaton’ChlorsulfuronCGA-131036glyphosatemetsulfuronsulfonylureaKochia scopariaSinapis arvensisKCHSCSINAR
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 83 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Day, R. W. and Quinn, G. P. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol. Monogr. 59:433–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Donald, W. W. 1988. Established foxtail barley, Hordeum jubatum, control with glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol. 2:364–368.Google Scholar
3. Donald, W. W. 1990. Primary tillage for foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) control. Weed Technol. 4:318–321.Google Scholar
4. Donald, W. W. 1990. Sulfonylurea herbicides. Pages 423–476 in Donald, W. W., ed. Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
5. Donald, W. W. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1990. Weed control and wheat production practices in the northern Great Plains. Pages 90–126 in Donald, W. W., ed. Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
6. Jones, D. and Matloff, N. 1986. Statistical hypothesis testing in biology: a contradiction in terms. J. Econ. Entomol. 79:1156–1160.Google Scholar
7. Morse, P. M. and Thompson, B. K. 1981. Presentation of experimental results. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:799–802.Google Scholar
8. Nalewaja, J. D. and Miller, S. D. 1981. Preemergence incorporated herbicides for foxtail control in wheat. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:96.Google Scholar
9. Perry, J. N. 1986. Multiple-comparison procedures: a dissenting view. J. Econ. Entomol. 79:1149–1155.Google Scholar
10. Swinnerton, P. W. and Davis, R. C. 1984. Conservation tillage farming in the Wimmera with chlorsulfuron. Proc. 7th Aust. Weeds Conf. 1:29–35.Google Scholar
11. Torstennson, L. 1985. Behaviour of glyphosate in soils and its degradation. Pages 137–151 in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworths, New York.Google Scholar
12. Wicks, G. A. 1985. Weed control in conservation tillage systems – small grains. Pages 77–100 in Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
13. Young, F. L. and Gealy, D. R. 1986. Control of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) with chlorsulfuron in a wheat (Triticum aestivum) summer-fallow rotation. Weed Sci. 34:318–324.Google Scholar
14. Young, F. L. and Whitesides, R. E. 1987. Efficacy of postharvest herbicides on Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) control and seed germination. Weed Sci. 35:554–559.Google Scholar