Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:56:32.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-Term Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Control in Two Cropping Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Dean G. Swan
Dean G. Swan*
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three herbicides, amine salt of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid], glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine], and dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) were applied for field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) control in grain/summerfallow or grain/legume rotations. After the first year all herbicide retreatments were made using 2,4-D amine. The 2,4-D treatment at 3.4 kg/ha gave 65% field bindweed control. Field bindweed control averaged 17% higher when the 2,4-D was applied in August rather than July. The 3.4-kg/ha rate gave 45% better field bindweed control than the 1.1 kg/ha rate. Dicamba at 6.7 kg/ha gave 90% field bindweed control and glyphosate at 4.5 kg/ha gave 86% control. Dicamba persisted in the soil for 1 to 3 yr after application and caused winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) yield loss. Crop yields were highest more than 90% of the time from plots treated with 2,4-D or glyphosate.

Keywords

Triticum aestivumLens culinaris2,4-Dglyphosatedicamba

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , September 1982, pp. 476 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Burnside, O. C. and Lavy, T. L. 1966. Dissipation of dicamba. Weeds 14:211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18:590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Friesen, H. A. 1965. The movement and persistence of dicamba in soil. Weeds 13:30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gaines, X. M. and Swan, D. G. 1972. Weeds of Eastern Washington and Adjacent Areas. Camp-Na-Bor-Lee Assn., Davenport, WA. 349 pp.Google Scholar
5. Gigax, D. R. and Messersmith, C. G. 1978. Field bindweed control with fall applied glyphosate and 2,4-D. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:153–156.Google Scholar
6. Holm, L. E., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.Google Scholar
7. Meyer, L. J. 1978. The influence of environment on growth and control of field bindweed. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:141–142.Google Scholar
8. Phillips, W. M. 1961. Control of field bindweed by cultural and chemical methods. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 1249. 30 pp.Google Scholar
9. Rieck, W. L. and Schumacher, R. 1978. Glyphosate performance on field bindweed in North Central United States. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:150.Google Scholar
10. Schweizer, E. E. and Swink, J. F. 1971. Field bindweed control with dicamba and 2,4-D, and crop response to chemical residues. Weed Sci. 19:717–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Stahlman, P. W. 1978. Field bindweed control in the Central Great Plains: A review. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33:150–152.Google Scholar