Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:55:37.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Herbicide Combinations and Application Technology on Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas R. Willard ,
James F. Gaffney  and
Donn G. Shilling
Thomas R. Willard
Affiliation:
American Agriculture, Inc., Cary, NC
James F. Gaffney
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate various herbicides and application technologies for the control of cogongrass. Imazapyr at 0.8 kg ae/ha provided the highest cogongrass control, followed by glyphosate (3.4 kg ae/ha) and sulfometuron (1.1 kg ai/ha) when applied as a single application. When sequential applications were evaluated, glyphosate plus imazapyr provided the best control. Sulfometuron could be applied sequentially after imazapyr or glyphosate with no loss of control, but control was less if sulfometuron was the initial herbicide. Tank mix combinations of glyphosate and imazapyr (100% rate at 3.4 and 1.1 kg ae/ha, and subsequent rates of 0 + 100, 25 + 75, 50 + 50, 75 + 25, and 100 + 0% of each herbicide, respectively) provided similar cogongrass control regardless of rate. Control using imazapyr improved from 20 to 40% with 234 L/ha diluent volume when compared to 46 L/ha. Glyphosate at either of these volumes provided from 0 to 21% inhibition of cogongrass. A 50% concentration of imazapyr applied twice with a ropewick provided greater control than a 33% concentration with one pass or either concentration of glyphosate with one or two passes. Efficacy with glyphosate applied using a ropewick was not affected by concentration or number of passes.

Keywords

Imazapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidsulfometuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2 pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidcogongrass, Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. # IMPCYLow-volume applicationsmethods of controlropewicksequential herbicide combinationstank-mixCRBD, completely randomized block design
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 76 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Bacon, P., 1986. AC 252925: a promising new compound for the control of sheet alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.). In Pancho, J. V., Sastroutomo, S. S., and Tjitrosemito, S., eds. Proceedings, Symposium in Weed Science, BIOTROP Special Publication No. 24. Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M., and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Influence of glyphosate concentration on glyphosate absorption and translocation in Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 35:291–295.Google Scholar
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
Dickens, R., 1973. Control of cogongrass—Imperata cylindrica . Alabama Highway Research Report Number 69.Google Scholar
Dickens, R., and Buchanan, G. A. 1975. Control of cogongrass with herbicides. Weed Sci. 23:194–197.Google Scholar
Geiger, D. R., and Bestman, H. D. 1990. Self-limitation of herbicide mobility by phytotoxic action. Weed Sci. 38:324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. In The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. pp. 62–71.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N., 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactant on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 29:79–83.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., and Hanks, J. E. 1993. Effect of spray volume and pressure on postemergence johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol. 7:304–310.Google Scholar
Prommool, S., 1984. Studies on weeds in the shifting cultivated area and non-shifting cultivated area. Thai J. Weed Sci. 2(2):98–105.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6. 4th ed., Volume 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
SEAWIC (Southeast Asian Weed Information Center). 1988. Annotated bibliography. SEAMEO-BIOTROP Center, Bogor, Indonesia. 2:1–37.Google Scholar
Shilling, D. G., and Haller, W. T. 1989. Interactive effects of diluent pH and calcium content on glyphosate activity on torpedograss (Panicum repens L.). Weed Res. 29:441–448.Google Scholar
Townson, J. K., and Butler, R. 1990. Uptake, translocation, and phytotoxicity of imazapyr and glyphosate in Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel: effect of herbicide concentration, position of deposit and two methods of direct contact application. Weed Res. 30:235–243.Google Scholar
Townson, J. K., and Price, C. E. 1987. Tropical weed control: an approach to optimizing herbicide performance with very low volume application. Aspects Appl. Biol. 14:305–306.Google Scholar