Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:58:55.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Herbicide Programs for Weed Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Alfalfa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bryan L. Dillehay  and
William S. Curran
Bryan L. Dillehay
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
William S. Curran*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wcurran@psu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this experiment was to determine the effectiveness and crop safety of glyphosate vs. alternative herbicides for weed control in glyphosate-resistant alfalfa. Glyphosate-resistant alfalfa was established at two sites in Pennsylvania in 2004 and in 2005, and herbicides were applied either PRE or POST for weed control. Data were collected on herbicide performance, alfalfa and weed yield, and forage quality. Alfalfa forage response to weed control was variable and depended on weed severity. A single or split application of glyphosate provided similar or better weed control than conventionally based herbicide programs. The most differences from weed control occurred during the first harvest and dissipated in subsequent harvests. Cumulative alfalfa yield for the establishment year of the spring seeding was 26% lower in the untreated check relative to the mean of the herbicide-treated plots in 2004; but no differences were detected in 2005. Forage quality was highest where weed content of the forage was lowest. Effective management of weeds with herbicides during alfalfa establishment can improve forage yield and quality, and weed control is particularly important when summer annual weed populations are severe and emerge with the crop.

El objetivo de este experimento, fue determinar la efectividad y seguridad del uso de glifosato vs. herbicidas alternativos para el control de maleza en alfalfa resistente a glifosato. En dos sitios de Pennsylvania, en 2004 y 2005 se estableció alfalfa resistente a glifosato aplicándose herbicidas pre-emergentes y post-emergentes para el control de la maleza. Se recopiló información sobre el comportamiento del herbicida, los rendimientos de maleza y alfalfa, y la calidad del forraje. El rendimiento de la alfalfa al control de maleza fue variable y dependió de la severidad de la infestación. Una sola aplicación glifosato o dividida, proporcionaron controles de maleza similares o mejores que aquellas basadas en aplicaciones convencionales en programas de herbicidas. La mayoría de las diferencias atribuidas al control de maleza, acontecieron durante la primer cosecha y estas se disiparon en los subsecuentes cortes. El rendimiento acumulado de alfalfa establecida en primavera del primer año, fue 26% menor en el control no tratado, con relación al promedio de las parcelas tratadas con herbicidas en 2004; sin embargo, en 2005 no se encontraron diferencias. La calidad del forraje fue más alta donde el contenido de maleza en el forraje fue más bajo. El manejo efectivo de la maleza con herbicidas durante el establecimiento de la alfalfa, puede mejorar el rendimiento y la calidad del forraje; por otra parte, el control de maleza es particularmente importante cuando las poblaciones de maleza anual de verano son severas y emergen al mismo tiempo que el cultivo.

Keywords

GlyphosatealfalfaMedicago sativa L. MEDSAForage quality
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 130 - 138
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Monsanto Company, Centre Hall, PA 16828.

References

Literature Cited

Agricultural Marketing Service 2009. Hay Reports. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/lsmnpubs. Accessed: August 10, 2009.Google Scholar
Arregui, M. C., Sanchez, D., and Scotta, R. 2001. Weed control in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 15:424–428.Google Scholar
Brothers, B. A., Schmidt, J. R., Kells, J. J., and Hesterman, O. B. 1994. Alfalfa establishment with and without spring-applied herbicides. J. Prod. Agric 7:494–501.Google Scholar
Buxton, D. R. and Wedin, W. F. 1970. Establishment of perennial forages, I: subsequent yields. Agron. J. 62:93–97.Google Scholar
Cooper, C. S. 1966. Response of birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa to various levels of shade. Crop Sci 6:63–66.Google Scholar
Cords, H. P. 1973. Weeds and alfalfa hay quality. Weed Sci 21:400–401.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Lingenfelter, D. D., Calvin, D. D., Tooker, J. F., and Dillon, J. M. 2008. Forages pest management. Pages 321–346. In Kirsten, A. The Agronomy Guide 2009–2010. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Darwent, A. L., Cole, D., and Malik, N. 1997. Imazethapyr, alone or with other herbicides for weed control during alfalfa (Medicago sativa) establishment. Weed Technol 11:346–353.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Dawson, J. H., and Appleby, A. P. 1988. Interference of annual weeds in seedling alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Sci 36:583–588.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S., Wilson, H. P., Ritter, R. L., Majek, B. A., Curran, W. S., Chandran, R., and VanGessel, M. 2010. Weed control in field crops. Section 5–23 in The 2010. Pest Management Guide. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech. http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/456/456-016/456-016-10_Field_Crops.pdf. Accessed: March 8, 2010.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. R. 2010. Weed control in forages. Section 4.11. In Cox, W. and Smith, L. The 2010 Cornell guide for integrated field crop management. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Cooperative Extension. http://ipmguidelines.org/FieldCrops/. Accessed: March 8, 2010.Google Scholar
Hall, M. H., Curran, W. S., Werner, E. L., and Marshall, L. E. 1995. Evaluation of weed control practices during spring and summer alfalfa establishment. J. Prod. Agric 8:360–365.Google Scholar
Hall, M. H. 2006. Forages. Pages 79–102. In Rudisill, A. Agronomy Guide. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Hoy, M. D., Moore, K. J., George, J. R., and Brummer, E. C. 2002. Alfalfa yield and quality as influenced by establishment method. Agron. J. 94:65–71.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Strieker, C. F. 1975. Selective control of downy brome in alfalfa. Weed Sci 23:202–206.Google Scholar
Kuehn, C. S., Jung, H. G., Linn, J. G., and Martin, N. P. 1999. Characteristics of alfalfa hay quality grades based on the relative feed value index. J. Prod. Agric 12:681–684.Google Scholar
McCaslin, M. 2002. The commercial potential for genetic engineering in alfalfa. Abstract 02-201 in The 38th North American Alfalfa Improvement conference, Sacramento, CA, July 27–31. Beltsville, MD: NAAIC. http://www.naaic.org/Meetings/National/2002meeting/2002NAAICAbstracts.html. Accessed: August 10, 2009.Google Scholar
McCordick, S. A., Hillger, D. E., Leep, R. H., and Kells, J. J. 2008a. Establishment systems for glyphosate-resistant alfalfa. Weed Technol 22:22–29.Google Scholar
McCordick, S. A., Hillger, D. E., Leep, R. H., and Kells, J. J. 2008b. Forage quality of glyphosate-resistant alfalfa as influenced by establishment systems. Weed Technol 22:635–640.Google Scholar
McKenzie, J. S. and McLean, G. E. 1982. The importance of leaf frost resistance to the winter survival of seedling stands of alfalfa. Can. J. Plant Sci 62:399–405.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. 1987. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminal function. J. Anim. Sci 64:1548–1558.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009. NASS Published Estimates. http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp. Accessed August 10, 2009.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th rev. ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Oba, M. and Allen, M. S. 1999. Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cow. J. Dairy Sci 82:589–596.Google Scholar
Ott, P. M., Dawson, J. H., and Appleby, A. P. 1989. Volunteer wheat (Triticum aestivum) in newly seeded alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol 3:375–380.Google Scholar
Pike, D. R. and Stritzke, J. F. 1984. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)–cheat (Bromus secalinus) competition. Weed Sci 32:751–756.Google Scholar
Smith, D. 1969. Influence of temperature on the yield and chemical composition of ‘Vernal’ alfalfa at first flower. Agron. J. 61:470–472.Google Scholar
Stout, W. L., Byers, R. A., Leath, K. T., Bahler, C. C., and Hoffman, L. D. 1992. Effects of weed and invertebrate control on alfalfa establishment in oat stubble. J. Prod. Agric 5:349–352.Google Scholar
Summers, C. G. 1998. Integrated pest management in forage alfalfa. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev 3:127–154.Google Scholar
Undersander, D. J. and Moore, J. E. 2002. Relative Forage Quality. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension Service Focus on Forage Series 4(5). http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/RFQvsRFV.htm. Accessed: August 10, 2009.Google Scholar
Van Riper, G. E. 1964. Influence of soil moisture on the herbage of two legumes and three grasses as related to dry matter yields, crude protein, and botanical composition. Agron. J. 56:45–50.Google Scholar
Zaman, M. S., Moyer, J. R., Boswall, A. L., and Mir, Z. 2003. Nutritional quality and yield of seedling alfalfa established with a barley companion crop and weeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol 103:163–169.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. The effect of competition duration. Pages 109–130. In Zimdahl, R. L. Weed–crop competition: a review. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Blackwell.Google Scholar