Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:21:18.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Control with Fluroxypyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert T. Macdonald
Affiliation:
Dep. Environ. Biol., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
J. Christopher Hall
Affiliation:
Dep. Environ. Biol., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
James J. O'Toole
Affiliation:
Centralia Coll. Agric. Technol., Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci. Univ., Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1

Abstract

Experiments were conducted under controlled environment and field conditions to evaluate the influence of growth stage and fluroxypyr dosage on control of field bindweed. In controlled environment studies fluroxypyr effectively controlled 8- to 12-leaf field bindweed. Shoot number, length, and dry weight, and root dry weight decreased as herbicide dose increased. The estimated ED50 (effective dose for 50% reduction) values for shoot and root dry weight were 50 and 33 g ai/ha, respectively. The ED50 for shoot length was 98 g ai/ha. Fluroxypyr was applied at rates from 0.2 to 0.4 kg/ha under field conditions to field bindweed at selected stages of growth. Regardless of herbicide dosage, fluroxypyr applied at the late flowering stage of growth controlled field bindweed better than when applied at the bud or early flower stage. Corn grain yield increased as a function of fluroxypyr dose in 1988 but not in 1987. Dry weight of roots and shoots of field bindweed harvested one year after treatment decreased with increasing rates of fluroxypyr. These studies demonstrate the potential of fluroxypyr for the control of field bindweed.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Anonymous. 1988. Field Crop Recommendations, Publication 296, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 91 p.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1991. Guide to weed control. Publication 75, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
3. Brown, R. H. and Swanton, C. J. 1985. Fluroxypyr for broadleaf weed control in field corn IX. Expert Committee on Weeds Report 1:95.Google Scholar
4. Davison, J. G. 1970. The establishment of Convolvulus arvensis in a non-competitive situation. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.–Weeds. 1: 252257.Google Scholar
5. Degennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32:472476.Google Scholar
6. Kennedy, P. B. and Crafts, A. S. 1931. The anatomy of Convolvulus arvensis, wild morning glory or field bindweed. Hilgardia 5:591623.Google Scholar
7. Kintner, D. E. and Jentes, C. E. 1989. Evaluation of fluroxypyr and triclopyr for control of problem perennial weeds in field corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:3132.Google Scholar
8. Knake, E. L., Wesley, L. O., and Paul, L. E., 1989. Multi-species evaluation of postemergence herbicides. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. 46:150154.Google Scholar
9. Masiumas, J. B. and Orfanedes, M. S. 1991. Tolerance of sweet corn (Zea mays) to clopyralid and EF-689. Weed Technol. 5:376380.Google Scholar
10. Merritt, C. R. 1983. Some effects of moisture stress on the Stellaria media leaf and the action of the ioxynil ester. p. 171177 in Aspects of Applied Biology 4, Influence of Environmental Factors on Herbicide Performance and Crop and Weed Biology. The Association of Applied Biologists, Wellesbourne, Warwick. p. 171–177.Google Scholar
11. O'Toole, J. J. and Horn, J. 1989. Bindweed control in zero-tillage corn. Annu. Rep. Centralia Coll. Agric. Tech. p. 6. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
12. O'Toole, J. J. 1988. Bindweed control in corn. Expert Committee on Weeds Report. 1:665.Google Scholar
13. Sa'ad, F. 1967. The Convolvulus species of the Canary Isles, the Mediterranean region and the near and Middle East. Bronder-Offset, Rotterdam. 287 p.Google Scholar
14. Sanders, G. E. and Pallett, K. E. 1987. Comparison of the uptake, movement and metabolism of fluroxypyr in Stellaria media and Viola arvensis . Weed Res. 27:159166.Google Scholar
15. Sanders, G. E. and Pallett, K. E. 1987. Physiological and ultrastructural changes in (Stellaria media) following treatment with fluroxypyr. Ann. Appl. Biol. 111:385398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Schoenhals, M. G., Wiese, A. F., and Wood, M. L. 1990. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with imazapyr. Weed Technol. 4:771775.Google Scholar
17. Schweizer, E. E. and Swink, J. F. 1971. Field bindweed control with dicamba and 2,4-D, and crop response to chemical residues. Weed Sci. 19:717720.Google Scholar
18. Schweizer, E. E., Sink, J. F., and Heibes, P. E. 1978. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control in corn (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with dicamba and 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 26:665668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Weaver, S. E. and Riley, W. R. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53 Convolvulus arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:461472.Google Scholar
20. Wiese, A. F. and Phillips, W. M. 1976. Field bindweed. Weeds Today 7:2223.Google Scholar
21. Wiese, A. F. and Lavake, D. E. 1985. Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 34: 7780.Google Scholar