Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:19:26.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) Response to Four Grass Control Herbicides Broadcast Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles L. Webber III
Charles L. Webber III*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., South Central Agric. Res. Lab., P.O. Box 159, Lane, OK 74555
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The availability of postemergence grass control herbicides can prevent dependence on potentially unnecessary preemergence herbicides. No postemergence grass control herbicides have federal registration for kenaf in the United States. This research was conducted to collect data to support such registration. Clethodim, fluazifop, quizalofop, and sethoxydim applied at three rates did not injure established kenaf, reduce plant populations, reduce plant heights, or reduce stalk yields.

Keywords

Clethodim, (E,E)-(±)-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-onefluazifop, (±)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]-propanoic acidquizalofop, (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidsethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclo-hexen-1-onekenaf, Hibiscus cannabinus L.Phytotoxicityplant populationstalk heightstalk yieldyield components
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 457 - 460
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. Bagby, M. O., Cunningham, R. L., Touzinsky, G. F., Hamerstrand, G. E., Curtis, E. L., and Hofreiter, B. T. 1979. Kenaf thermomechanical pulp in newsprint. Atlanta, GA: TAPPI/NPFP Committee Progress Report 10, p. 111.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. and Williams, J. H. 1968. Weed control methods for Kinkaoil, Kenaf, and Sunn Crotalaria. Agron. J. 60:162–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Clark, T. F., Cunningham, R. L., and Wolff, I. A. 1971. A search for new fiber crops. TAPPI 54(1):63–65.Google Scholar
4. Gilmore, E. C. Jr. and Rogers, J. S. 1958. Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn. Agron. J. 50:611–615.Google Scholar
5. Killinger, G. B. 1967. Potential uses of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Florida Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Proc. 27:4–11.Google Scholar
6. Kurtz, M. E. and Neill, S. W. 1992. Tolerance of kenaf to selective postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:125–128.Google Scholar
7. Nieschlag, H. J., Nelson, G. H., Wolff, I. A., and Perdue, R. E. Jr. 1960. A search for new fiber crops. TAPPI 43(3): 193–201.Google Scholar
8. Orsenigo, J. R. 1964. Weed control in kenaf. Proc. Int. Kenaf Conf. 2:177–187.Google Scholar
9. Phillips, W. A., Rao, S., and Dao, T. 1989. Nutritive value of immature whole plant kenaf and mature kenaf tops for growing ruminants. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Indust. Crops. p. 17–22.Google Scholar
10. Russelle, M. P., Wilhelm, W. W., Olson, R. A., and Power, J. F. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24:28–32.Google Scholar
11. SAS Institute, Inc. 1988. SAS user's guide: Statistics, 15th ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 1028 p.Google Scholar
12. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical methods, 6th ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 593 p.Google Scholar
13. Tilmon, H. D., Taylor, R., and Malone, G. 1988. Kenaf: An alternative crop for Delaware. p. 301–302 in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., eds. Advances in New Crops. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 560 p. Google Scholar
14. Toole, E. H. 1960. Preservation of hemp and kenaf seed. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1215. Washington, D.C. 16 p.Google Scholar
15. Webber, C. L. III. 1992. Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) yield components as affected by sewage sludge applications. Proc. TAPPI Pulping Conf. p. 57–62.Google Scholar
16. Webber, C. L. III. 1993. Crude protein and yield components of six kenaf cultivars as affected by crop maturity. Indust. Crops and Prod. 2:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. White, G. A., Cummins, D. G., Whiteley, E. L., Fike, W. T., Greig, J. K., Martin, J. A., Killinger, G. B., Higgins, J. J., and Clark, T. F. 1970. Cultural and harvesting methods for kenaf. U.S. Dep. Agric. Prod. Res. Rep. 113. Washington, D.C. 38 p.Google Scholar
18. Williams, J. H. 1966. Influence of row spacing and nitrogen levels on dry matter yields of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Agron. J. 58:166–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wilson, F. D., Summers, T. E., Joyner, J. F., Fishier, D. W., and Seale, C. C. 1965. ‘Everglades 41’ and ‘Everglades 71,’ two new varieties of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) for the fiber and seed. Florida Agric. Exp. Stn. Cir. S-168. 12 p.Google Scholar