Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:17:16.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Guar Tolerance to Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian L. S. Olson ,
John W. Sij  and
Todd A. Baughman
Brian L. S. Olson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Northwest Research and Extension Center, Kansas State University, Colby, KS 67701
John W. Sij
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Box 1658, Vernon, TX 78861
Todd A. Baughman
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Box 1658, Vernon, TX 78861
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bolson@oznet.ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Guar production in the United States is limited to a relatively small region in the semiarid southern Great Plains of Texas and Oklahoma. The lack of POST broadleaf herbicides is a potential limiting factor to increased production. A greenhouse study was initiated in 2001 at the Texas A&M Research Center near Vernon, TX to evaluate guar tolerance to 10 POST herbicides typically used in soybean or cotton. Guar seedlings were grown in pots, and herbicides with appropriate adjuvants were applied to 3-wk-old seedlings at the registered rate (1×) and twice (2×) the registered rate for soybean or cotton. The study was repeated twice, with six replications in each run. Twenty-eight d after treatment (DAT), visual injury and aboveground dry weight of viable biomass were recorded for each plant. Significant differences (P = 0.05) were noted among herbicides for visual injury and viable biomass. Little or no differences in visual injury and aboveground dry weight were observed between the control (no herbicide applied) and the 1× rate of 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid, bentazon, or imazethapyr 28 DAT. A 1× application rate of acifluorfen, imazamox, thifensulfuron, or bromoxynil caused minor visual injury of 7 to 9% and a reduction in dry weight of 8 to 23%. Pyrithiobac and chlorimuron caused 38 and 47% visible injury and a 35 and 58% reduction in dry weight, respectively. Guar was most sensitive to lactofen, with the 1× rate causing 100% visual injury and no recoverable aboveground biomass. This greenhouse study identified three POST herbicide candidates with potential to control broadleaf weeds in guar without noticeable plant injury, and offers data to support herbicide registrations for this minor crop.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazonbromoxynilchlorimuronimazamoximazethapyrlactofenpyrithiobacthifensulfuron2,4-DBcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.guar, Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub ‘Kinman’soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrDry beancrop tolerance
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 523 - 525
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

Baughman, T. and Sij, J. 2002. Rolling Plains 2001—Research and extension guar report. Vernon, TX Vernon Center Technical Report 2002-07. 220.Google Scholar
Baughman, T., Sij, J., Reed, J., and Ott, J. 2003. Rolling Plains 2002—Research and extension guar report. Vernon, TX Vernon Center Technical Report 2003-08. 258.Google Scholar
Bhadoria, R. B. S., Jain, P. C., and Tomar, S. S. 2000. Crop-weed competition in clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) under rain fed condition. Indian J. Agron. 45:737–739.Google Scholar
Deeds, Z. A., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Stahlman, P. W. 2006. Wheat response to stimulated drift of glyphosate and imazamox applied at two growth stages. Weed Technol. 20:23–31.Google Scholar
Kumar, V., Yadav, B. D., and Yadav, J. S. 2003. Effect of drought ameliorative chemicals on clusterbean grown on light textured soil under rainfed condition. Pages 361–363. in Henry, A., Kumar, D. and Singh, N.B. eds. Advances in Arid Legumes Research. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Arid Legumes, for Food Nutrition Security and Promotion of Trade. Jodhpur, India Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
McMurphy, W. E. 1959. The Effect of 4(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) butyric Acid on Alfalfa, Cowpeas, Guar, Mungbeans, Peanuts, Safflower, and Sesame. M.S. thesis Stillwater, OK Oklahoma State University. 29.Google Scholar
Mulky, J. R. 1971. Cotton-guar rotation. Pages 31. Soil and crop research in the Rolling Plains. Cons. PR-2884-2897: Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
Olson, B., Baughman, T., and Sij, J. 2001. Rolling Plains 2000—Guar research and extension report. Vernon, TX Vernon Center Technical Report 2001-09. 210.Google Scholar
Sij, J. W., Ott, J. P., Olson, B. L. S., and Baughman, T. A. 2005. Growth and yield response to simulated hail damage in guar. Agron. J. 97:1636–1639.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T. 1973. Weed and herbicide research in West Texas 1971–73. Texas A&M University, College Station: Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. PR-3197-3209. 33.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T., Wiese, A. F., and Santelmann, P. W. 1973. Weed control research in guar in Texas and Oklahoma 1961–1972. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. B-1138. 11.Google Scholar
Smith, M. C., Shaw, D. R., and Miller, D. K. 2005. In-field bioassay to investigate the persistence of imazaquin and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 53:121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, R. E. 1982. Effect of row spacing and plant density on yield of guar. Texas A&M University, College Station: Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP 1516. 7.Google Scholar
Stafford, R. E. 1987. Dry matter accumulation in different guar genotypes under irrigated and dryland conditions. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 158:38–48.Google Scholar
Stafford, R. E. and McMichael, B. L. 1991. Effect of water stress on yield components in guar. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 166:63–68.Google Scholar
Stafford, R. E., McMichael, B. L., and Burke, J. J. 1991. Genetic variation for stress related traits in guar. Environ. Exp. Bot. 31:303–312.Google Scholar
Staten, R. D. and Brooks, L. E. 1960. Guar—A dual-purpose summer legume. Texas A&M University, College Station: Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. Leaflet 482. 2.Google Scholar
Tripp, L. D., Lovelace, D. A., and Boring, E. P. III. 1982. Keys to profitable guar production. Texas A&M University, College Station: Texas Coop. Ext. B-1399. 7.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. 2001. Acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides on imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Sci. 49:652–657.Google Scholar
Whistler, R. L. and Hymowitz, T. 1979. Guar: Agronomy, Production, Industrial Use, and Nutrition. West Lafayette, IN Purdue University Press. 29–34.Google Scholar
Yadav, R. S. 1998. Effects of weed removal in clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) under different rainfall situations in an arid region. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 181:209–214.Google Scholar