Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T20:21:44.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tank Mixing Saflufenacil, Glufosinate, and Indaziflam Improved Burndown and Residual Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Amit J. Jhala ,
Analiza H. M. Ramirez  and
Megh Singh
Amit J. Jhala*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Analiza H. M. Ramirez
Affiliation:
Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2299
Megh Singh
Affiliation:
Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, FL 33850-2299
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: amit.jhala@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Saflufenacil and indaziflam, POST and PRE herbicides, respectively, have been registered recently for weed control in Florida citrus. Glufosinate is under evaluation and may be registered in the future for POST weed control in citrus. Citrus growers often want to have a tank mixture of herbicides that provide broad-spectrum weed control. Saflufenacil is a broadleaf herbicide and needs to be tank mixed with other herbicide(s) to increase weed control spectrum. Information is not available on interaction of saflufenacil, glufosinate, and indaziflam applied in tank mixtures on weed control efficacy. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted at two locations (Polk and Orange County, FL) to evaluate the efficacy and potential antagonism or synergy of saflufenacil and glufosinate applied in tank mixes, and various three-way mixes with indaziflam. The results suggested that tank mixing saflufenacil with glufosinate had no effect on grass weed control, but had additive effect on broadleaf weed control. Indaziflam tank mixed at the recommended label rate (0.073 kg ha−1) provided better residual weed control compared with the lower rate (0.05 kg ha−1). Tank mixing indaziflam with saflufenacil and glufosinate improved broadleaf and grass weed control, reduced weed density, and biomass compared with tank mixing saflufenacil and glufosinate. Tank mixing indaziflam at 0.073 kg ha−1 with saflufenacil and glufosinate provided ≥ 88% control of broadleaf and grass weeds at 30 d after treatment (DAT), and it was comparable with tank mixing saflufenacil, glyphosate and pendimethalin. This treatment combination recorded the lowest weed density (≤ 7 plants m−2) and biomass (< 80 g m−2) at 60 DAT. Glyphosate applied alone was less effective than tank mixing with saflufenacil and glufosinate for broadleaf and grass weed control. This indicates additive effect of tank mixture on glyphosate efficacy. It is concluded that saflufenacil can be tank mixed with glufosinate for control of broadleaf and grass weeds; however, addition of indaziflam in tank mixture provided long-term, broad-spectrum weed control in Florida citrus compared with other treatments.

Saflufenacil e indaziflam son herbicidas POST y PRE, respectivamente, que han sido registrados recientemente para el control de malezas en cítricos en Florida. Glufosinate está siendo evaluado y podría ser registrado en el futuro para el control de malezas POST en cítricos. Los productores de cítricos a menudo quieren tener mezclas de herbicidas en tanque que brinden un control de malezas de amplio espectro. Saflufenacil es un herbicida para malezas de hoja ancha, el cual necesita ser mezclado en tanque con otros herbicidas para incrementar el espectro de control de malezas. No hay información disponible acerca de la interacción de saflufenacil, glufosinate e indaziflam al ser aplicados en mezclas en tanque sobre la eficacia en el control de malezas. Se realizaron experimentos de invernadero y de campo en dos localidades (condados Polk y Orange, Florida) para evaluar la eficacia y el potencial de antagonismo o sinergia de saflufenacil y glufosinate aplicados en mezcla en tanque, y de varias mezclas de tres-vías con indaziflam. Los resultados sugirieron que la mezcla en tanque de saflufenacil con glufosinate no tuvo efecto sobre el control de gramíneas, pero tuvo un efecto aditivo sobre el control de malezas de hoja ancha. La mezcla en tanque con indaziflam a la dosis recomendada (0.073 kg ha−1) brindó mejor control residual al compararse con la dosis baja (0.05 kg ha−1). El mezclar en tanque indaziflam con saflufenacil y glufosinate mejoró el control de malezas gramíneas y de hoja ancha, y redujo la densidad y biomasa de malezas en comparación con la mezcla en tanque de saflufenacil y glufosinate. La mezcla en tanque de indaziflam a 0.073 kg ha−1 brindó ≥88% de control de malezas de hoja ancha y gramíneas a 30 días después del tratamiento (DAT), y fue comparable con la mezcla en tanque de saflufenacil, glyphosate y pendimethalin. Esta combinación registró las densidades de malezas (≤7 plantas m−2) y de biomasa (<80 g m−2) más bajas a 60 DAT. Glyphosate aplicado solo fue menos efectivo que la mezcla en tanque con saflufenacil y glufosinate para el control de malezas de hoja ancha y gramíneas. Esto indica un efecto aditivo de la mezcla en tanque sobre la eficacia de glyphosate. Se concluyó que saflufenacil puede ser mezclado en tanque con glufosinate para el control de malezas de hoja ancha y gramíneas. Sin embargo, la adición de indaziflam a la mezcla en tanque brindó el mayor control de amplio espectro y larga duración en cítricos en Florida en comparación con otros tratamientos.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosateindaziflampendimethalinsaflufenacilcitrus, Citrus sppHerbicidesweed biomassweed density
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 422 - 429
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

Affeldt, R. and Rice, C. 2008. Evaluation of pendimethalin (Prowl) tank mixes on Roundup Ready alfalfa. Oregon State University Extension Service. May 12, 2011. http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sr/sr1093-e/sr1093_17.pdf.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2010a. Treevix™ herbicide product label. Research. Triangle Park, NC BASF. 10 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2011. Alion™ herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience. Pages 9 p.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol. 20:793–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J. T., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosnan, J. T., Breeden, G. K., McCullough, P. E., and Henry, G. M. 2012. PRE and POST control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua) with indaziflam. Weed Technol. 26:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosnan, J. T., McCullough, P. E., and Breeden, G. K. 2011. Smooth crabgrass control with indaziflam at various spring timings. Weed Technol. 25:363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O. and Powles, S. B. 2008. Glyphosate: A once in a century herbicide. Pest Mgt. Sci. 64:319–325.Google Scholar
Futch, S. H. and Singh, M. 2011. Weeds. Pp. 139–151 in Rogers, M. E., Dewdney, M. M., and Spann, T. M., eds. Florida citrus pest management guide (SP 43). Gainesville, FL Inst. Food Agr. Sci., University of Florida.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Charvat, L. D. 2009. Dose response of five broadleaf weeds to saflufenacil. Weed Technol. 23:313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. and Owen, M.D.K. 2011. Herbicide resistant crops: Utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58:5819–5829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K., Niggeweg, R., Christiansen, N., Looser, R., and Ehrhardt, T. 2010. The herbicide saflufenacil (Kixor™) is a new inhibitor of protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase activity. Weed Sci. 58:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, B. D. and Jhala, A. J. 2010. Glufosinate plus indaziflam for late spring and summer weed control in established orchards. Page 8 in Proceedings of 54th Annual Weed Day. Davis, CA Weed Research & Information Center, University of California- Davis. Abstract].Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2011. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=12&FmHRACGroup=Go. Accessed May 5, 2011.Google Scholar
Jhala, A. J. and Hanson, B. D. 2011. Summer weed control with glyphosate tank mixed with indaziflam or penoxsulam in California orchards and vineyards. Page 21 in Proceedings of the 51st Annual Conference of the Weed Science Society of America. Portland, OR Weed Science Society of America. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Jhala, A. J., Ramirez, A.H.M., Knezevic, S., Van Damme, P., and Singh, M. 2013. Herbicide tank mixtures for broad-spectrum weed control in Florida citrus. Weed Technol. 27:129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhala, A. J. and Singh, M. 2012. Leaching of indaziflam compared with residual herbicides commonly used in Florida citrus. Weed Technol. 26:602–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. A., Chandler, J. M., Morrison, J. E., Senseman, S. A., and Tingle, C. H. 2001. Glufosinate combinations and row spacing for weed control in glufosinate resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Datta, A., Scott, J., and Charvat, L. D. 2009. Adjuvants influenced saflufenacil efficacy on fall-emerging weeds. Weed Technol. 23:340–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Datta, A., Scott, J., and Charvat, L. D. 2010. Application timing and adjuvant type affected saflufenacil efficacy on selected broadleaf weeds. Crop Prot. 29:94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8:17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebl, R. A., Walter, H., Bowe, S. J., Holt, T. J., and Westberg, D. E. 2008. BAS 800H: A new herbicide for preplant burndown and preemergence dicot weed control. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Amer. Annu. Conf. 48:120. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Owen, L. N., Mueller, T. C., Maine, C. L., Bond, J., and Steckel, L. E. 2011. Evaluating rates and application timings of saflufenacil for control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadenis) prior to planting no-till cotton. Weed Technol. 25:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. 2008. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: Lessons to be learnt. Pest Mgt. Sci. 64:360–365.Google Scholar
Singh, M., Malik, M. S., Ramirez, A.H.M., and Jhala, A. J. 2011a. Tank mix of saflufenacil with glyphosate and pendimethalin for weed control in Florida citrus. Hort Technol. 21:606–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M., Ramirez, A.H.M., and Edenfield, M. 2011b. Indaziflam: A new pre-emergence herbicide for citrus. Page 44 n Proceedings of 51st Weed Science Society of America Conference. Portland, OR Weed Science Society of America. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Singh, M., Sharma, S. D., Ramirez, A.H.M., and Jhala, A. J. 2011c. Glyphosate efficacy, absorption and translocation in selected four weed species common to Florida citrus. Hort Technol. 21:599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. 2009. Response of corn to pre-emergence and post-emergence applications of saflufenacil. Weed Technol. 23:331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. Florida Citrus Statistics 2010–2011. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Citrus/fcs/2010-11/fcs1011.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Waggoner, B. S., Mueller, T. C., Bond, J. A., and Steckel, L. E. 2011. Control of glyphosate resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with saflufenacil tank mixtures in no-till cotton. Weed Technol. 25:310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar