Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:49:08.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quackgrass (Agropyron Repens) Control with SC-0224 and Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Paul T. Kivlin and
Jerry D. Doll
Paul T. Kivlin
Affiliation:
Univ. Wis., Dep. Agron., Madison, WI 53706
Jerry D. Doll
Affiliation:
Univ. Wis., Dep. Agron., Madison, WI 53706
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 1982 to 1984 to evaluate the effectiveness of SC-0224 (trimethylsulfonium carboxymethylaminomethylphosphonate) and glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] for quackgrass [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. # AGRRE] control. The herbicides were compared 1) in different rates and carrier volumes, 2) on several spring and fall application dates, and 3) with varying time intervals between application and moldboard plowing. Glyphosate and SC-0224 controlled quackgrass equally well at carrier volumes of 25 to 400 L/ha. Both herbicides generally provided similar control as fall and spring applications and with time intervals of 12 to 96 h between application and plowing. Occasionally the low rate of SC-0024 gave less quackgrass control the next season than the same rate of glyphosate. Adding nonionic surfactant at 0.5% (v/v) did not influence the phytotoxicity of these herbicides at the rates and carrier volumes tested. These herbicides controlled quackgrass comparably and greater than 85% when applied under appropriate environmental conditions.

Keywords

Carrier volumenonionic surfactantplowing intervalquackgrass regrowthAGRRE

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1988, pp. 147 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Arnold, C. E., and O'Neal, W. B. 1972. Quackgrass and Canada thistle control with MON-2130. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 29:26–27.Google Scholar
2. Baird, D. D., Upchurch, R. P., Homesley, W. B., and Franz, J. E. 1971. Introduction of a new broad spectrum postemergence herbicide class with utility for herbaceous perennial weed control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 26:64–68.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, R., and Elakkad, M. 1972. Quackgrass control with glyphosate. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 27:54.Google Scholar
4. Brockman, F. E., Duke, W. B., and Hunt, J. F. 1973. Agronomic factors influencing the effectiveness of glyphosate for quackgrass control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:21–29.Google Scholar
5. Buchholtz, K. P. 1962. Some characteristics of quackgrass and their relation to control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 16:16–22.Google Scholar
6. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of water quality. carrier volume, and acid on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 31:163–169.Google Scholar
7. Carlson, K. L., and Burnside, O. C. 1982. Relative activity of H2SO4 on SC 0224, SC-0545, HOE-00661 and glyphosate toxicity to volunteer wheat in wheat stubble. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:70–71.Google Scholar
8. Doll, J. D. 1985. Interaction to glyphosate and crop rotation on quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., No. 60.Google Scholar
9. Harvey, R. G. 1973. Quackgrass: friend or foe? Weeds Today 4(4):8–9.Google Scholar
10. Ivany, J. A. 1975. Effects of glyphosate application at different growth stages on quackgrass control. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 55:861–863.Google Scholar
11. Jordan, T. N. 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactant on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass. Weed Sci. 29:79–83.Google Scholar
12. Lowe, P. F., and Buchholtz, K. P. 1951. Cultural methods for control of quackgrass. Weeds 1:346–351.Google Scholar
13. Majek, B. A., Erickson, C., and Duke, W. B. 1984. Tillage effects and environmental influences on quackgrass rhizome growth. Weed Sci. 32:376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hammon, W. M. 1981. Influence of non-ionic surfactant, ammonium sulphate, water quality and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:391–401.Google Scholar
15. Rioux, R., Bandeen, J. D., and Anderson, J. W. 1974. Effects of growth on translocation of glyphosate in quackgrass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 54:397–401.Google Scholar
16. Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.Google Scholar
17. Sprankle, P., and Meggitt, W. F. 1972. Effective control of quackgrass with fall and spring applications of glyphosate. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 27:54.Google Scholar
18. Stahlman, P. W., and Phillips, W. M. 1979. Effects of water quality and spray volume of glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 27:38–41.Google Scholar
19. Werner, P., and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. 24. Agropyron repens . Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:905–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wyse, D. L. 1976. Quackgrass control in field crops. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 31:152–154.Google Scholar
21. Wyse, D. L. 1985. The distribution and economic importance of quackgrass (Elymus repens) in the United States. p. 14–25 in Proc. Int. Symp. Long-term Control of Elymus (Agropyron) repens, London.Google Scholar
22. Young, F. L., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, R. J. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) interference in corn. Weed Sci. 32:226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar