Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:29:50.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) in Conservation Fallow Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw
Robert E. Blackshaw*
Affiliation:
Agric. Can. Res. Stn., Lethbridge, AB, Can. T1J 4B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine the most effective rate of several herbicides applied at various growth stages to control downy brome in conservation fallow programs. Downy brome growth stage affected the efficacy of all herbicides. All herbicides were less effective when application was delayed until the boot stage of downy brome. Fluazifop-P and sethoxydim must be applied prior to tillering to effectively control downy brome. Glyphosate, the commercial mixture of glyphosate plus 2,4-D, paraquat, and HOE-39866 consistently controlled downy brome up to the 3- to 5-tiller stage. Glyphosate at 180 to 200 g ha-1, paraquat at 250 to 300 g ha-1, and the commercial mixture of glyphosate plus 2,4-D at 600 to 660 g ha-1 controlled downy brome 80 to 90%. The effective rates were lower than rates currently registered for downy brome control in western Canada, and thus there is potential for making conservation fallow programs more economical when downy brome is the predominant weed.

Keywords

Fluazifop-P, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineHOE-39866, ammonium (3-amino-3-carboxypropyl)methyl phosphinateparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionsethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic aciddowny brome, Bromus tectorum L. ♯ BROTEFluazifop-PglyphosateHOE-39866paraquatsethoxydim2,4-DBromus tectorumherbicide efficacygrowth stagereduced tillage fallowBROTE
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 557 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Alberta Agriculture. 1991. Crop protection in Alberta. Agdex 606-1. 193 p.Google Scholar
2. Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. HOE-39866 use in chemical fallow systems. Weed Technol. 3:420–428.Google Scholar
3. Brandt, S. A., and Kirkland, K. J. 1980. Herbicide programs for reduced tillage in Saskatchewan. p. 153–158 in Proc. Tillage Symp., N. Dak. State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv., Bismarck, ND.Google Scholar
4. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31:124–130.Google Scholar
5. Chernicky, J. P., Gossett, B. J., and Murphy, T. R. 1984. Factors influencing control of annual grasses with sethoxydim or RO-13-8895. Weed Sci. 32:174–177.Google Scholar
6. Derr, J. F., Monaco, T. J., and Sheets, T. J. 1985. Response of three annual grasses to fluazifop. Weed Sci. 33:693–697.Google Scholar
7. Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., and Derksen, D. A. 1990. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) invasion into southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70:1143–1151.Google Scholar
8. Evans, R. A., and Eckert, R. E. Jr. 1965. Paraquat-surfactant combinations for control of downy brome. Weeds 13:150–151.Google Scholar
9. Gallant, A. R. 1987. Nonlinear Statistical Models. John Wiley & Sons, NY. 610 p.Google Scholar
10. Hosaka, H., Inaba, H., and Ishikawa, H. 1984. Response of monocotyledons to BAS 9052 OH. Weed Sci. 32:28–32.Google Scholar
11. Lindwall, C. W., and Anderson, D. T. 1981. Agronomic evaluation of minimum tillage systems for summerfallow in southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:247–253.Google Scholar
12. Massee, T. W. 1976. Downy brome control in dryland winter wheat with stubble-mulch fallow and seeding management. Agron. J. 68:952–955.Google Scholar
13. Morrow, L. A., and Stahlman, P. W. 1984. The history and distribution of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in North America. Weed Sci. 32, Suppl. 1:2–6.Google Scholar
14. O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Weiss, G. M. 1983. Influence of stage of application of glyphosate and paraquat with and without Tween 20 on the control of annual grass species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63: 1039–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Smeda, R. J., and Putnam, A. R. 1990. Influence of temperature, rainfall, grass species, and growth stage on efficacy of fluazifop. Weed Technol. 4:349–355.Google Scholar
16. Thill, D. C., Beck, K. G., and Callihan, R. H. 1984. The biology of downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 32, Suppl. 1:7–12.Google Scholar
17. Upadhyaya, M. K., Turkington, R., and McIlvride, D. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds. 75. Bromus tectorum L. Can. J. Plant Sci 66:689–709.Google Scholar
18. Wiese, A. F. (Ed.) 1985. Weed control in limited tillage systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Monogr. No. 2. 297 p.Google Scholar
19. Wilson, H. P., Mascianica, M. P., Hines, T. E., and Walden, R. F. 1986. Influence of tillage and herbicides on weed control in a wheat (Triticum aestivum)-soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Weed Sci. 34:590–594.Google Scholar
20. Zentner, R. P., and Lindwall, C. W. 1982. Economic evaluation of minimum tillage systems for summer fallow in southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:631–638.Google Scholar