Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:54:37.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) Control with Reduced Rates of Soil and Foliar-Applied Imazaquin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. Crop Physiol., 302 Life Sci. Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Northeast Res. Stn., St. Joseph, LA 71366
P. Roy Vidrine
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Res. Stn., Alexandria, LA 71302
Arnold M. Saxton
Affiliation:
Dep. Exp. Stat., Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate common cocklebur control in soybean with imazaquin applied preplant incorporated (PPI), preemergence (PRE), and postemergence (POST) at rates ranging from 24 to 140 g ai ha-1. With logistic regression analysis, predictions of common cocklebur control with imazaquin at 140 g ha-1 ranged from 92 to 95% (PPI), 87 and 92% (PRE), and 88 to 98% (POST) when rainfall was received for activation of PRE treatments and when weeds were not moisture stressed at time of POST application. When imazaquin was reduced to 70 g ha-1 under the same conditions, weed control was no higher than 88% PPI and 78% PRE. For all locations and years, common cocklebur control ranged from 79 to 91% for imazaquin POST at 24 g ha-1. Soybean yield was positively correlated with common cocklebur control (r = 0.66, P < 0.05).

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Anderson, J. M. and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:397400.Google Scholar
2. Baldwin, F. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1985. A reduced rate intensive management soybean weed control program. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 38:487.Google Scholar
3. Baldwin, F. L., Boyd, J. W., and Guy, C. G. 1992. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. Ark. Coop. Ext. Serv. MP-44.Google Scholar
4. Barrentine, W. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1977. Competition, threshold levels, and control of common cocklebur in soybeans. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn. and Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 83.Google Scholar
5. Barrentine, W. L. 1989. Minimum effective rate of chlorimuron and imazaquin applied to common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). Weed Technol. 3:126130.Google Scholar
6. Congleton, W. F., VanCantfort, A. M., and Lignowski, E. M. 1987. Imazaquin (Scepter): A new soybean herbicide. Weed Technol. 1:186188.Google Scholar
7. Defelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365374.Google Scholar
8. Gossett, B. J. 1971. Common cocklebur-soybeans worst enemy. Weeds Today 2:911.Google Scholar
9. Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1991. Efficacy of imazaquin on various weed species. Weed Sci. 39:243250.Google Scholar
10. Teem, D. S., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Geographic distribution, germination, and emergence. Weed Sci. 28:6871.Google Scholar
11. SAS Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
12. Wesley, R. A., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1989. Application timing of metribuzin, chlorimuron, and imazaquin for common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control. Weed Technol. 3:364368.Google Scholar