Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T19:24:59.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oat (Avena sativa) Response to Imazapic Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric P. Prostko,
Timothy L. Grey,
Robert N. Morgan and
Jerry W. Davis
Eric P. Prostko*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31794
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31794
Robert N. Morgan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31794
Jerry W. Davis
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: eprostko@uga.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three field trials were conducted in south Georgia under irrigated conditions in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 to evaluate the effects of imazapic residues on oat growth and yield. Imazapic at 70 g ai/ha was applied during the first weeks of May, June, July, August, and September to bare soil. No additional tillage was performed after the herbicide application. Oats (cv. Coker 227) were planted the first week of October. Oat plant populations were not reduced by any timing of imazapic. Generally, oat plant heights and forage yields were reduced when imazapic was applied in August and September (1–2 mo before planting). Grain yields were not reduced by any timing of imazapic. Results of these tests suggest that the current 18-mo rotational restriction for oats following an application of imazapic could be reduced to 4 mo.

Keywords

Imazapicoats, Avena sativa L. ‘Coker 227’Carryovercrop rotationsherbicide persistenceimidazolinoneplant-back restrictionsDAPdays after planting

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005, pp. 875 - 878
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. 2005a. Cadre® product label. BASF Corporation. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005b. Georgia Crop Estimates. Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ga/estpages/crops.htm. Accessed: August 29, 2005.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Baughman, T. A., Keeling, J. W., Grichar, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2001. Effect of imazapic application timing on Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:26–29.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1997. Purple nutsedge control in peanut as affected by imazameth and imazethapyr application timing. Peanut Sci. 24:113–116.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Prostko, E. P., Bednarz, C. W., and Davis, J. W. 2005. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated imazapic residues. Weed Technol. 19:1045–1049.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Nester, P. R. 1997. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 11:714–719.Google Scholar
Grymes, C. F., Chandler, J. M., and Nester, P. R. 1995. Response of soybean (Glycine max) and rice (Oryza sativa) in rotation to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 9:504–511.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.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
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of imidazolinone herbicides in soil—a review of the literature. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Matocha, M. A., Grichar, W. J., Senseman, S. A., Gerngross, C. A., Brecke, B. J., and Vencill, W. K. 2003. The persistence of imazapic in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) crop rotations. Weed Technol. 17:325–329.Google Scholar
Monaco, T. J., Weller, S. C., and Ashton, F. M. 2002. Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 127–145.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. R. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. K., and Kvien, C. K. 1995a. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to the herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci. 22:76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. Toxicity of AC 263,222 to purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 42:398–402.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wiley, G. L. 1995b. AC 263,222 and imazethapyr rates and mixtures for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 9:801–806.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT* User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. 3884 pp.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Wilcut, J. W., and Coble, H. D. 1997. Influence of AC 263,222 rate and application on weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:520–526.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G. L., and Walls, R. F. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 44:615–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, G. R. 1992. Effects of soil-applied AC 263,222 on crops rotated with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:276–279.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., Batts, R. G., and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Cotton response to imazapic and imazethapyr applied to a preceding peanut crop. J. Cotton Sci. 4:210–216.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Potential for Pursuit and Cadre applied to peanuts to carry over to cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:602.Google Scholar