Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:13:17.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Application Placement Equipment for Tall Fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) Growth and Seedhead Suppression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam C. Hixson ,
Travis W. Gannon  and
Fred H. Yelverton
Adam C. Hixson*
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Travis W. Gannon
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Fred H. Yelverton
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: achixson@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted to evaluate plant growth-regulator efficacy for tall fescue growth and seedhead suppression applied using application placement equipment. Specially designed equipment outfitted with fluid application systems applies low-volume plant growth regulator directly on plant foliage, reducing opportunity for drift and visible application. Wet-blade mowers are equipped to apply plant growth regulators and mow in a single pass, whereas rotary-wick applicators simply wipe chemicals directly on uncut vegetation. Therefore, a wet-blade, rotary-wick, and broadcast sprayer system were chosen to apply imazapic at three rates (9, 35, and 53 g ai/ha), and a mefluidide + chlorsulfuron tank mix at 7 + 140 g ai/ha to tall fescue roadsides for vegetative growth and seedhead suppression. Experiments were conducted during the spring and summer of 2004 in central and western North Carolina. Tall fescue was slightly injured and discolored by all treatments but fully recovered by 2 mo after treatment. Imazapic suppressed new vegetative growth 3 mo after treatment compared with the nonmowed–nontreated control (16.1 cm of growth) and the mowed–nontreated control (21.1 cm) when applied with the rotary-wick applicator (8.5 cm) and broadcast sprayer (6.2 cm). However, differences in vegetative height primarily occurred when application placement equipment treatments were compared with nontreated vegetation as opposed to mowed–nontreated plants. Although mowed–nontreated and wet-blade–treated plots had more new vegetative growth, nonmowed–nontreated plots still consistently had the greatest vegetative height. Seedhead suppression ranged from 87 to 100% when compared with the nonmowed–nontreated control, with wet-blade treatments consistently providing the least-effective seedhead suppression. Overall, application placement equipment did not improve plant growth-regulator efficacy when compared with the foliar broadcast spray.

Keywords

Chlorsulfuronimazapicmefluididetall fescue, Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. Darbyshire, ‘Kentucky 31’Seedhead suppressionplant growth regulatorapplication placement equipmentlow volumewet-bladerotary-wickroadsideturfgrass
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 801 - 806
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

Bohannan, D. R. and Jordan, T. N. 1995. Effects of ultra-low volume application on herbicide efficacy using oil diluents as carriers. Weed Technol. 9:682–688.Google Scholar
Burch, T. B. inventor. 2000. Apparatus and method for cutting and treating vegetation. 103 U.S. patent 6,125,621.Google Scholar
Charudattan, R., DeValeria, J. T., and Petterson, M. S. 2001. Biological control of tropical soda apple with plant pathogens and integration of biological control with other management options. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:80. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Christians, N. E. 1985. Response of Kentucky bluegrass to four growth retardants. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. 110:765–769.Google Scholar
DeValerio, J. T., Charudattan, R., Mullahey, J. J., Sherrod, W. H., and Roberts, P. D. 2000. Biological control of Solanum viarum Dunal (tropical soda apple) by Ralstonia solanacearum (E. F. Smith) Yabuuchi applied with the Burch Wet Blademower system. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 40:28–29. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Elkins, D. M. 1974. Chemical suppression of tall fescue seedhead development and growth. Agronomy J. 66:426–429.Google Scholar
Fagerness, M. and Penner, D. 1998a. Evaluation of V-10029 and trinexapac-ethyl for annual bluegrass seedhead suppression and growth regulation of five cool-season turfgrass species. Weed Technol. 12:436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagerness, M. and Penner, D. 1998b. Spray application parameters that influence the growth inhibiting effects of trinexapac-ethyl. Crop Sci. 38:1028–1035.Google Scholar
Foote, L. E. and Himmelman, B. F. 1971. MH as a roadside grass retardant. Weed Sci. 19:86–90.Google Scholar
Gover, A. E., Johnson, J. M., and Kuhns, L. J. 2004. Evaluation of imazapic as a growth regulator in roadside tall fescue. Proc Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:34–35.Google Scholar
Gover, A. E., Watschke, T. L., Spackman, C. W., and Parks, R. W. 1995a. Response of tall fescue to mefluidide in combination with flurprimidol, paclobutrazol, or trinexapac-ethyl. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:192–193.Google Scholar
Gover, A. E., Watschke, T. L., Spackman, C. W., and Parks, R. W. 1995b. Response of tall fescue to fall or spring application of plant growth regulator treatments. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:190–191.Google Scholar
Henson, S. E. 1996. Development of a Wound Surface Method of Herbicide Application, M.S. thesis. Raleigh, NC Department of Horticulture Science, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Henson, S. E., Skroch, W. A., Burton, J. D., and Worsham, A. D. 2003. Herbicide efficacy using a wet-blade application system. Weed Technol. 17:320–324.Google Scholar
Johansson, T. 1998. Preventing stump regrowth with a herbicide-applying tree cutter. Weed Res. 28:353–358.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1989a. Response of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) to plant growth regulator application dates. Weed Technol. 3:408–413.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1989b. Response of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) to plant growth regulators and mowing frequency. Weed Technol. 3:54–59.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1990. Response of bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) to plant growth regulators. Weed Technol. 4:895–899.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1992. Response of centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiuroides) to plant growth regulators. Weed Technol. 6:113–118.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1993. Frequency of plant growth regulator and mowing treatments—effects on injury and suppression of centipedegrass. Agron. J. 85:276–280.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. and Murphy, T. R. 1991. Sequential herbicide and plant growth regulator treatments on bermudagrass (Cynodon spp). Weed Technol. 5:607–611.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B., Miller, L. C., and Colvin, D. L. 1990. Tall fescue root-growth rate following mefluidide and flurprimidol application. Hortscience 25:581–581.Google Scholar
McCullough, P. E., Liu, H. B., McCarty, L. B., and Whitwell, T. 2004. Response of ‘TifEagle’ bermudagrass to seven plant growth regulators. Hortscience 39:1759–1762.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. L. and Kelley, K. W. 1995. Broadleaf herbicide effects on tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) seedhead density, forage yield, and quality. Weed Technol. 9:270–276.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. R., McCarty, L. B., and Yelverton, F. H. 2005. Turfgrass plant growth regulators. Pages 705–714. in McCarty, L.B. ed. Best Golf Course Management Practices, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rademacher, W. 2000. Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 51:501–531.Google Scholar
Ruemmele, B. A., White, D. B., and Ascher, P. D. 1988. The influence of mefluidide on vegetative suppression and seedhead inhibition of Poa annua L and Poa supina Schrad. Hortscience 23:737–737.Google Scholar
Skroch, W. A., Worsham, A. D., Henson, S. E., and Wahlers, R. L. 1998. Efficacy and application with the Burch wet blade system. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:218.Google Scholar
Spak, D., DiPaola, J., Lewis, W., and Anderson, C. 1993. Tall fescue sward dynamics, 2: influence of four plant growth regulators. Crop Sci. 33:304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spokas, L. A. and Cooper, R. J. 1991. Plant growth regulator effects on foliar discoloration, pigment content, and photosynthetic rate of Kentucky bluegrass. Crop Sci. 31:1668–1674.Google Scholar
Wahlers, R., Burton, J., Maness, E., and Skroch, W. 1997a. Physiological characteristics of a stem cut and blade delivery method of application. Weed Sci. 45:746–749.Google Scholar
Wahlers, R., Burton, J., Maness, E., and Skroch, W. 1997b. A stem cut and blade delivery method of herbicide application for weed control. Weed Sci. 45:829–832.Google Scholar
Watschke, T. L., Prinster, M. G., and Brenninger, J. M. 1992. Plant growth regulators and turfgrass management. Pages 557–588. in Waddington, D.V., Carrow, R.N., Shearman, R.C. eds. Agronomy Monograph No. 32. Turfgrass. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Wehner, D. J. 1980. Growth regulation of Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:382–388.Google Scholar
Wiecko, G. 1997. Response of ‘Tifway’ bermudagrass to trinexapac-ethyl. J. Turfgrass Management. 2:29–36.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H., McCarty, L. B., and Murphy, T. R. 1997. Effects of imazameth on the growth of Paspalum notatum Fluegge: Int. Turfgrass Soc. 8:1085–1094.Google Scholar