Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:34:59.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control During Establishment and Yield Response of Timothy (Phleum pratense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Najib Malik
Najib Malik*
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada Res. Stn., Melfort, Saskatchewan SOE 1AO
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of 14 herbicide treatments, tested in the establishment phase, were investigated on timothy productivity in two field experiments conducted at Melfort, Saskatchewan. Satisfactory weed control achieved with chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron, thifensulfuron, bentazon, diclofop plus bromoxynil, and MCPA/mecoprop/dicamba during the establishment year ensured good forage establishment which in turn caused a ‘residual effect’ for 1 to 3 yr increasing individual cut as well as cumulative forage dry matter yields significantly. In the stand established in 1985, when field pennycress (97 m-2) was the dominant weed in the seedling stage, these treatments increased yields 29 to 52% over a 3-yr period. In the stand established in 1986, when common lambsquarters (27 m-2) was the dominant weed, these treatments increased cumulative yields 24 to 44%. Sethoxydim and fenoxaprop, tested alone, caused significant crop injury in both experiments.

Keywords

bromoxynil, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitriledicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic aciddiclofop,(±)-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoic acidfenoxaprop, (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidMCPA, (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acidmecoprop, (±)-2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)propanoic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorphenoxy)acetic acidtimothy, Phleum pratense L. ♯3 PHLPRcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALfield pennycress, Thlaspi arvense L. ♯ THLARCrop toleranceforage dry matterbentazonbromoxynilchlorsulfurondicambadiclofopfenoxapropMCPAmecopropmetsulfuronsethoxydimthifensulfuronChenopodium albumThlaspi arvensePhleum pratenseCHEALTHLAR

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 1990, pp. 598 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Agriculture Canada. 1974. Forage crop production in the aspen parklands of western Canada. Publ. 1545, Res. Stn., Melfort, Sask.Google Scholar
2. Darwent, A. L., and Smith, J. H. 1982. Tolerance of seedling grasses to herbicides. ECW Res. Rep. (W. Sect), Vol. 3, p. 19–20.Google Scholar
3. Goodwin, M. S., and Bonnefoy, G. 1984. Tolerance of seedling timothy to various herbicides at Oak Bluff. ECW Res. Rep. (W. Sect.), Vol. 3, p. 53.Google Scholar
4. Malik, N., and Waddington, J. 1989. Weed control strategies for forage legumes. Weed Technol. 3:288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Saskatchewan Agriculture. 1990. Chemical weed control in cereal, oilseed, pulse and forage crops. Agdex 641.Google Scholar
6. Smith, D., Bula, R. J., and Walgenbach, R. P. 1986. Timothy characteristics and management. p. 179–184. Forage Management (Fifth Edition). Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
7. Todd, B. G., and Bonnefoy, G. 1983. Tolerance of seedling timothy to herbicides. ECW Res. Rep. (W. Sect), Vol. 3, p. 107–108.Google Scholar
8. Walton, P. D. 1983. Production and Management of Cultivated Forages. Reston Publ. Co. Inc., Reston, VA.Google Scholar
9. Waddington, J. 1978. The effect of weed control practices on alfalfa forage quality. Proc. 2nd Int. Green Crop Drying Congr., Univ. Sask., p. 130–136.Google Scholar