Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T00:03:32.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bundleflower (Desmanthus bicornutus) Response to Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. James Grichar and
W. R. Ocumpaugh
W. James Grichar*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 3507 Hwy 59E, Beeville, TX 78102
W. R. Ocumpaugh
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 3507 Hwy 59E, Beeville, TX 78102
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: w-grichar@tamu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 2003 through 2006 to evaluate bundleflower tolerance to several postemergence (POST) herbicides commonly used in pastures. All herbicides except imazapic, metsulfuron, and 2,4-DB injured bundleflower at least 88% when rated 4 wk after treatment (WAT). When rated 8 WAT, metsulfuron, picloram, and picloram plus 2,4-D injured bundleflower greater than 90%. Imazapic stunted bundleflower (10 to 35% injury) throughout the growing season. When rated 52 WAT, dicamba plus 2,4-D, picloram alone, and picloram plus 2,4-D injured bundleflower at least 97% in one of two years. Emergence of bundleflower with picloram-containing treatments ranged from 16 to 67% of the nontreated control, whereas emergence after dicamba-containing treatments ranged from 67 to 97%.

Keywords

Dicambaglyphosateimazapicmetsulfuronpicloram2,4-Dbundleflower, Desmanthus bicornutus S. Watson ‘BeeTAM-06’, ‘BeeTAM-08’, ‘BeeTAM-37’, ‘BeeTAM-57’Auxinic herbicidesbundleflower injuryherbicide toleranceseedling emergence

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007, pp. 1089 - 1092
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

Allen, R. and Casely, J. C. 1987. The persistence and mobility of AC 222,293 in cropped and fallow land. Proc. Brit. Crop Protect. Conf.-Weeds 6:569–576.Google Scholar
Beeler, J. E., Rhodes, G. N., Bates, G. E., Main, C. L., and Mueller, T. C. 2004. Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) control in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and clover (Trifolium sp.) pastures with mixtures of 2,4-D and picloram. Weed Technol. 18:1091–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beran, D. D., Masters, R. A., and Gaussoin, R. E. 1999. Establishment of grassland legumes with imazethapyr and imazapic. Agron. J. 91:592–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beran, D. D., Masters, R. A., Gaussoin, R. F., and Rivas-Pantoja, F. 2000. Establishment of big bluestem and Illinois bundleflower mixtures with imazapic and imazethapyr. Agron. J. 92:460–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
Gorell, R. M., Bingham, S. W., and Foy, C. L. 1981. Control of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) fleshy roots in pastures. Weed Sci. 29:586–589.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:452–458.Google Scholar
Luckow, M. 1993. Monograph of Desmanthus (Leguminosae–Mimosoidea). Sys. Bot. Monogr. 38:1–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, N. D., Cole, E., Darwent, A. L., and Moyer, J. R. 1988. Imazethayyr (Pursuit)—a promising new herbicide for forage legumes. Forage Notes 32:42–45.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicide in soil—a review of the literature. Pages 191–209. in Shaner, D.L., O'Connor, S.L. eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Nissen, S. J., Gaussoin, R. E., Beran, D. D., and Stougaard, R. N. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technol. 10:392–403.Google Scholar
Ocumpaugh, W. R., Grichar, W. J., Hussey, M. A., Abrameit, A. H., Owens, M. K., Reed, R. L., Muir, J. P., Bade, D., and Reilley, J. L. 2004a. Registration of BeeTAM-06 bundleflower. Crop Sci. 44:1860–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocumpaugh, W. R., Grichar, W. J., Hussey, M. A., Abrameit, A. H., Owens, M. K., Reed, R. L., Muir, J. P., Bade, D., and Reilley, J. L. 2004b. Registration of BeeTAM-08 bundleflower. Crop Sci. 44:1861–1862.Google Scholar
Ocumpaugh, W. R., Grichar, W. J., Hussey, M. A., Abrameit, A. H., Owens, M. K., Reed, R. L., Muir, J. P., Bade, D., and Reilley, J. L. 2004c. Registration of BeeTAM-37 bundleflower. Crop Sci. 44:1862–1863.Google Scholar
Ocumpaugh, W. R., Grichar, W. J., Hussey, M. A., Abrameit, A. H., Owens, M. K., Reed, R. L., Muir, J. P., Bade, D., and Reilley, J. L. 2004d. Registration of BeeTAM-57 bundleflower. Crop Sci. 44:1863–1864.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2001. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8.1. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
W.K. Vencill, ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar