Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-cp4x8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T18:24:47.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop Response to Fallow Applications of Atrazine and Clomazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Drew J. Lyon  and
Randy L. Anderson
Drew J. Lyon
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Randy L. Anderson
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Akron, CO 80720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of oat, foxtail millet, proso millet, and sunflower to atrazine and clomazone applied the previous fall was investigated two years in field studies near Akron, CO and Sidney, NE. Foxtail millet biomass, and proso millet and sunflower grain yields were not reduced when these crops were seeded into soil that had been treated the previous fall with atrazine and/or clomazone at rates of 0.6 or 1.1 kg ai/ha. Forage yield of oat was reduced 11 to 18% by some treatments, but this effect was not consistent over years or sites. Treatments containing 1.1 kg/ha of atrazine provided 1 to 5 wk of residual weed control in foxtail millet, proso millet, and sunflower. The study indicated that producers have flexibility in crop selection when using atrazine and clomazone in reduced- and no-till production systems.

Keywords

Atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N′-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineclomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinonefoxtail millet, Setaria italica (L.) Beauvoat, Avena sativa L.proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.Follow cropno-till fallowreduced-till fallowcrop rotationcropping intensity
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 949 - 953
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Anderson, R. L. 1990. No-till proso millet production. Agron. J. 82: 577–580.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, R. L. 1990. Tolerance of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), corn (Zea mays), and proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) to clomazone. Weed Technol. 4:606–611.Google Scholar
3. Brinkman, M. A., Langer, D. K., and Harvey, R. G. 1980. Response of barley, spring wheat, and oats to atrazine. Crop Sci. 20:319–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Carr, P. M., Carlson, G. R., Jacobsen, J. S., Nielsen, G. A., and Skogley, E. O. 1991. Farming soils, not fields: a strategy for increasing fertilizer profitability. J. Prod. Agric. 4:57–61.Google Scholar
5. Donald, W. W. 1979. Greenhouse screening trials of herbicide efficacy on jointed goatgrass and ‘Centurk’ winter wheat. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 312–317.Google Scholar
6. Donald, W. W. 1981. Registered chemical fallow herbicides for jointed goatgrass control in Colorado. Res. Prog. Rep. West Soc. Weed Sci. p. 270.Google Scholar
7. Fenster, C. A. and Peterson, G. A. 1979. Effects of no-tillage fallow compared to conventional tillage in a wheat-fallow system. Nebraska Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 289, Lincoln.Google Scholar
8. Gallandt, E. R., Fay, P. K., and Inskeep, W. P. 1989. Clomazone dissipation in two Montana soils. Weed Technol. 3:146–150.Google Scholar
9. Greb, B. W. 1983. Water conservation: Central Great Plains. p. 57–72 in Dregne, H. E., and Willis, W. O., ed. Dryland Agriculture. Agronomy Monograph 23. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
10. Gunsolus, J. L., Behrens, R. H., Lueschen, W. E., Warnes, D. D., and Wiersma, J. V. 1986. Carryover potential of AC-263,499, DPX-F6025, FMC 57020, and imazaquin in Minnesota. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:52.Google Scholar
11. Hinze, G. O. and Smika, D. E. 1983. Cropping Practices: Central Great Plains. p. 387–395 in Dregne, H. E., and Willis, W. O., ed. Dryland Agriculture. Agronomy Monograph 23. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
12. Hoffman, D. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1978. Plant competition for atrazine. Weed Sci. 26:94–99.Google Scholar
13. Holt, J. S. 1992. History and identification of herbicide-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 6:615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Holt, J. S. and LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:141–149.Google Scholar
15. Peterson, G. A. and Westfall, D. G. 1990. Sustainable dryland agroecosystems. p. 23–29 in Great Plains Agric. Council Bull. 131, Bismarck, ND.Google Scholar
16. Ross, C. G. 1987. Control of weeds in fallow with FMC 57020. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 40:132–133.Google Scholar
17. Smika, D. E. 1983. Cropping practices: Introduction. p. 293–295 in Dregne, H. E. and Willis, W. O., ed. Dryland Agriculture. Agronomy Monograph 23. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
18. Smika, D. E. and Sharman, E. D. 1982. Atrazine carryover and its soil factor relationships to no-tillage and minimum tillage fallow-winter wheat cropping in the Central Great Plains. Colorado State Univ. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 144, Ft. Collins.Google Scholar
19. Tymonko, J. M. and Guscar, H. L. 1984. Influence of soil properties on the activity of clomazone. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39: 76.Google Scholar
20. Wicks, G. A., Popken, D. H., and Lowry, S. R. 1989. Survey of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) stubble fields sprayed with herbicides after harvest in 1986. Weed Technol. 3:244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar