Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:48:53.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Mowing and Hexazinone Application on Giant Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason A. Ferrell  and
J. Jeffery Mullahey
Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
J. Jeffery Mullahey
Affiliation:
University of Florida, West Florida Research & Education Center, Milton, FL 32572
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant smutgrass is a perennial, clump-type, grassy weed that commonly infests Florida pastures. Experiments were conducted in 1998 and 1999 in Immokalee, FL, to evaluate multiple mowing treatments in combination with hexazinone applications at 0.56 to 1.7 kg ai/ha, to control giant smutgrass and bahiagrass density. Mowing did not influence giant smutgrass control in 1998 or 1999. Hexazinone application increased giant smutgrass control at all application rates. In 1998, regression analysis determined that hexazinone applied at 0.56 kg/ha provided >90% control of giant smutgrass 182 d after treatment (DAT) and >80% control 321 DAT. Both 1.1 and 1.7 kg/ha of hexazinone provided >90% control for 365 DAT in 1998. In 1999, due in part to excessive rainfall, 0.56 kg/ha provided >80% control for only 48 DAT. It was also concluded that application rates of 0.83 to 0.98 kg/ha hexazinone were the lowest rates that consistently provided 80% or better control over both years. From 0 to 30 DAT, bahiagrass density increased by 17% for the 0.56 kg/ha rate and 2% at the 1.7 kg/ha rate. From 30 to 365 DAT, bahiagrass density increased at 0.04% per day compared with 0.1% per day for 0.56 and 1.7 kg/ha, respectively. Increased bahiagrass injury by the higher application rates of hexazinone was responsible for low levels of bahiagrass growth from 0 to 30 DAT. However, bahiagrass soon recovered from injury, and the higher application rates resulted in a more rapid rate of bahiagrass spread, likely due to less competition of giant smutgrass in plots treated with 1.1 and 1.7 kg/ha rates. These data prove that mowing prior to hexazinone application is an unwarranted expense, and that the 1.1 kg/ha rate provided the most effective and consistent giant smutgrass control with acceptable levels of bahiagrass injury.

Keywords

Hexazinonegiant smutgrass, Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. var. pyramidalis (P. Beauv.) Veldkampbahiagrass, Paspalum notatum Fluegee, #3 PASNOBahiagrass densityhexazinonepasture weedstropical forage
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 90 - 94
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

Anonymous. 2004. Velpar L Herbicide. Product label. Wilmington, DE: E.I. du Pont de Nomours and Company. 18 p.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1981. Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) pastures. Weed Sci. 29:553–555.Google Scholar
Currey, W. L., Parrado, R., and Jones, D. W. 1973. Seed characteristics of smutgrass. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 32:53–54.Google Scholar
Hewitt, T. D. 2000. Custom Rates for Farm Machinery in 2000. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Publication FE-268. Web page: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. Accessed: April 15, 2005.Google Scholar
McCaleb, J. E. and Hodges, E. M. 1971. Smutgrass control at Range Cattle Station, Ona, Florida. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. 24:182–186.Google Scholar
McCaleb, J. E., Hodges, E. M., and Kirk, W. G. 1963. Smutgrass control. Fla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. S-149. 10 p.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P. and Currey, W. L. 1980. Smutgrass (Sporobolus poiretii) control in South Florida. Weed Sci. 28:316–320.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Martin, F. G., and Hall, D. W. 2002. Indian dropseed/giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis) control in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) pastures. Weed Technol. 16:707–711.Google 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. 13:571–575.Google Scholar
Mullahey, J. J. 2000. Evaluating grazing management systems to control giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:59.Google Scholar
Neary, D. G., Bush, P. B., and Douglass, J. E. 1983. Off-site movement of hexazinone in stormflow and baseflow from forest watersheds. Weed Sci. 31:543–551.Google Scholar
Simon, B. K. and Jacobs, S. W. L. 1999. Revision of the genus Sporobolus in Australia. Aust. Syst. Bot. 16:165–176.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Hexazinone. in Vencill, W. K., ed. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 242–244.Google Scholar
Watson, L. and Dallwitz, M. J. 1992. The grass genera of the world. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar