Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:09:43.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) Control and Establishment of Three Forage Legumes with Three Selective Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Craig G. Davidson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Robert L. McGraw
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108

Abstract

Sethoxydim {2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one} and RO-13-8895 {acetone-O-[d-2-[p-[(α,α,α-trifluoro-p-tolyl)-oxy]phenoxy]propionyl]oxime} were evaluated for quackgrass [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. ♯ AGRRE] control in ‘Norcen’ birdsfoot trefoil [Lotus corniculatus (L.)], ‘Monarch’ cicer milkvetch [Astragalus cicer (L.) Hook.], and ‘Arlington’ red clover [Trifolium pratense (L.)]. None of the herbicide treatments applied to weed-free legumes 3, 15, and 30 cm tall reduced crop ground cover or seed yield. Postemergence treatments of sethoxydim and RO-13-8895 applied to quackgrass in the one- to four-leaf stage, at rates from 0.56 to 1.1 kg ai/ha, gave control of 57 to 91% in September of the seedling year. Legumes in all postemergence herbicide-treated plots produced more seed than legumes in untreated plots, regardless of time of application. Sequential applications of sethoxydim, RO-13-8895, or fluazifop {(±)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid} at 0.14 plus 0.14 kg ai/ha gave more effective quackgrass control and greater legume ground cover than single applications at 0.28 kg ai/ha.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. Anonymous. 1970. Proc. Assoc. Official Seed Analysts. Vol. 60, No. 2. 116 pp.Google Scholar
2. Beuselinck, P. R. and McGraw, R. L. 1983. Seedling vigor of three Lotus species. Crop Sci. 23:390391.Google Scholar
3. Bhowmik, P. C. and Doll, J. D. 1980. Postemergence quackgrass control in soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. 35:45.Google Scholar
4. Blaser, R. E., Taylor, T., Friffeth, W., and Skrdla, W. 1956. Seedling competition in establishing forage plants. Agron. J. 48:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dekker, J. H. 1981. Evaluations of postemergence applied herbicides on quackgrass in soybeans. North Cent. Weed Conf. Res. Rep. 38:244.Google Scholar
6. Doll, J. D. 1978. Weed control in established alfalfa and other forage legumes. Univ. Wis. Bull. A2682. 4 pp.Google Scholar
7. Harvey, R. G. and Leroux, G. D. 1979. Established alfalfa weed control study. North Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. Res. Rep. 36:3435.Google Scholar
8. Henson, P. R. and Tayman, L. A. 1961. Seed weights of varieties of birdsfoot trefoil as affecting seedling growth. Crop Sci. 1:306.Google Scholar
9. Peters, R. A. 1980. Postemergence control of crabgrass with BAS 9052 OH in new alfalfa and red clover seedlings. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:101.Google Scholar
10. Townsend, C. E. 1977. Recurrent selection for high seed weight in cicer milkvetch. Crop Sci. 17:473476.Google Scholar
11. Townsend, C. E. 1981. Breeding cicer milkvetch for improved forage yield. Crop Sci. 21:363366.Google Scholar