Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:46:46.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oat and Rye Tolerance to Mesosulfuron and Tribenuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew W. MacRae,
A. Stanley Culpepper and
Timothy L. Grey
Andrew W. MacRae*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: awmacrae@uga.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The affect of mesosulfuron and tribenuron applied POST to oat and rye was determined at three locations in Georgia during 2004 and 2005. Five herbicide treatments were applied to oat and rye in Feekes scale (FS) 1.2 or 2 developmental stage. Herbicide treatments consisted of tribenuron at 13 or 26 g ai/ha, tribenuron at 13 g/ha plus MCPA at 561 g ai/ha, MCPA at 561 g/ha, and mesosulfuron at 15 g ai/ha. Tribenuron, MCPA, and tribenuron plus MCPA injured both crops less than 4% and did not affect grain yield. Mesosulfuron applied to rye in FS 1.2 injured the crop 36% at 2 wk after treatment (WAT), 12% at 5 WAT, and 0% at harvest. Mesosulfuron applied at FS 2 injured rye less than 9%. Mesosulfuron did not influence rye-grain yield with either application timing. Mesosulfuron injured oat 65 to 86% at 5 WAT and reduced yield at least 70% regardless of application timing.

Keywords

MCPAmesosulfuron-methyltribenuron-methyloat, Avena sativa L. ‘Horizon 32’rye, Secale cereale L. ‘Wrens 96’Injuryyield

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007, pp. 938 - 940
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 2007. MCPA Amine herbicide specimen label. St. Paul, MN Agriliance.Google Scholar
Appleby, A. P., Olson, P. D., and Colbert, D. R. 1976. Winter wheat reduction from interference by Italian ryegrass. Agron. J. 68:463–466.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Influence of AE F130060 03 application timing on Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control. Weed Technol. 17:842–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buntin, G. D. and Cunfer, B. M. 2000. Southern Small Grains Resource Management Handbook. http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/B1190.htm. Accessed: February 14, 2007.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P. and Bradley, K. W. 2005. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield response to henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) interference and simulated winterkill. Weed Technol. 19:902–906.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2003. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) tolerance and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control by AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00 mixed with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 17:881–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2004. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) tolerance and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control with AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00 applied in nitrogen. Weed Technol. 18:93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durgan, B. R., Yenish, J. P., Daml, R. J., and Miller, D. W. 1997. Broadleaf weed control in hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) with F8426. Weed Technol. 11:489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experiment design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. in Camper, N.D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
King, S. R. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. 2003. Effect of application rate and timing of AE F130060 03 plus AE F107892 for control of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Technol. 17:866–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Large, E. C. 1954. Growth stages in cereals. Plant Pathol. 3:128–129.Google Scholar
Liebl, R. and Worsham, A. D. 1987. Interference of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35:819–823.Google Scholar
SAS 2005. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1.3 Service Pack 2. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Wesley, M. T. 1991. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivar tolerance and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control with diclofop, BAY SMY 1500, and metribuzin. Weed Technol. 5:776–781.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] US Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006. Georgia Statistics Database. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Georgia/index.asp#. Accessed: September 6, 2006.Google Scholar