Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:53:45.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soft Rush (Juncus effusus) Control in Florida Pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neha Rana  and
Brent A. Sellers
Neha Rana
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center and Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Ona, FL 33865
Brent A. Sellers*
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center and Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Ona, FL 33865
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sellersb@ufl.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soft rush is a perennial, tussock-forming plant that often infests low-lying grazing areas in Florida. Experiments were conducted to determine the most effective herbicides for control of soft rush. Herbicide treatments included triclopyr + fluroxypyr at 0.43 + 0.15 and 0.86 + 0.30 kg/ha, 2,4-D amine at 1.12 and 2.24 kg/ha, 2,4-D amine + carfentrazone at 1.12 + 0.02 and 2.24 + 0.02 kg/ha, aminopyralid at 0.12 kg/ha, and 2,4-D amine + dicamba at 1.61 + 0.56 kg/ha and were applied to soft rush with and without mowing to a 15-cm stubble height. Aminopyralid and triclopyr + fluroxypyr did not control soft rush with or without mowing 1 and 12 mo after treatment (MAT). When mowing occurred prior to application, treatments containing 2,4-D provided at least 81% control of soft rush 1 MAT. In contrast, control was no greater than 59% when treatments were applied without mowing soft rush. Mowing had no impact on soft-rush control with herbicides 12 MAT. Applications of 2.24 kg/ha 2,4-D provided at least 90% control 12 MAT, but this was not significantly different from the premix of 2,4-D + dicamba or 2.24 + 0.02 kg/ha 2,4-D + carfentrazone treatments. Therefore, effective control of soft rush can be obtained with the use of 2,4-D amine or products that contain 2,4-D amine.

Keywords

2,4-D aminefluroxypyrtriclopyrcarfentrazonedicambaaminopyralidsoft rush, Juncus effusus L. IUNEFlimpograss, Hemarthria altissima (Poir.) Stapf & C.E. HubbHerbicidesmowingpasture weed controllimpograss
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 321 - 323
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

Campbell, S. 1953. The control of rushes by 2,4-D. Pages 190–198. in. Proceedings of the British Weed Control Conference. London British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Davies, T. H. and Harris, D. J. 1953. Rush control in the South-West province. Pages 198–203. in. Proceedings of the British Weed Control Conference. London British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Elliot, J. G. 1953. The use of growth regulator herbicides for the control of rushes. Pages 184–190. in. Proceedings of the British Weed Control Conference. London British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Ervin, G. N. and Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Seed fall and field germination of Juncus effusus. Aquat. Bot 71:233–237.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G., and Hunt, R. 1990. Comparative Plant Ecology. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Hormay, A. L., Alberico, F. J., and Lord, P. B. 1962. Experiences with 2,4-D spraying on the Lassen National Forest. J. Range Manag 15:325–328.Google Scholar
Humphrey, J. W. and Patterson, G. S. 2000. Effects of late summer cattle grazing on the diversity of riparian pasture vegetation in an upland conifer forest. J. Appl. Ecol 37:986–996.Google Scholar
Hutto, K. C., Taylor, J. M., and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 2007. Evaluation of 2,4-D and 2,4-D mixtures on path rush control in bermudagrass. Weed Technol 21:768–770.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. 1971. Investigations into Juncus Species in Ireland. M. Agr. . Dublin: University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. P. 1939. Grassland problem in N. Ireland. Agric. Prog 16:142–148.Google Scholar
Merchant, M. 1995. The effect of pattern and severity of cutting on the vigour of soft rush (Juncus effusus). Grass Forage Sci 50:81–84.Google Scholar
Newman, Y. C., Sollenberger, L. E., Fox, A. M., and Chambliss, C. G. 2003. Canopy height effects on vaseygrass and bermudagrass spread in limpograss pastures. Agron. J. 95:390–394.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. G. 1994. Combined analysis of several experiments. Pages 205–260. in. Agricultural Field Experiments, Design and Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Quesenberry, K. H., Ocumpaugh, W. R., Ruelke, O. C., Dunavin, L. S., and Mislevy, P. 1984. Floralta—A Limpograss Selected for Yield and Persistence in Pastures. Circular S-312. Gainesville, FL: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Richards, P. W. and Clapham, A. R. 1941. Juncus effusus L. J. Ecol 29:375–380.Google Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS. 1243.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Ferrell, J. A., Haller, W. T., Mislevy, P., and Adjei, M. B. 2007. Phytotoxicity of selected herbicides on limpograss (Hemarthria altissima). J. Aquat. Plant Manag 45:54–57.Google Scholar
Smart, P. J., Wheeler, B. D., and Willis, A. J. 1989. Regeneration of peat excavations in a derelict raised bog. New Phytol 3:733–748.Google Scholar
Tweel, A. W. and Bohlen, P. J. 2008. Influence of soft rush (Juncus effusus) on phosphorus flux in grazed seasonal wetlands. Ecol. Eng 33:242–251.Google Scholar
[USDA, NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2008. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed October 30, 2008.Google Scholar
Wetzel, R. G. and Howe, M. J. 1999. High production in a herbaceous perennial plant achieved by continuous growth and synchronized population dynamics. Aquat. Bot 64:111–129.Google Scholar