Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:08:09.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) Response to Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Alan C. York,
Stewart M. Turner and
Ronald E. Jarrett
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Stewart M. Turner
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Ronald E. Jarrett
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of ‘Florico,’ ‘Victoria,’ and 'Stan II’ triticale to 2,4-D, dicamba, 2,4-D plus dicamba, diclofop, and thifensulfuron plus tribenuron applied POST during the tillering stage was examined. At rates twice those recommended for application to wheat, Victoria and Stan II were not injured, and injury to Florico was less than 10%. None of the herbicides or combinations adversely affected plant height at maturity, tiller or spike production, grain weight/spike, kernel weight, kernels/spike, yield, or test weight of any cultivar. Cultivars varied in tiller production, height, yield, test weight, kernel weight, and kernels/spike.

Keywords

Dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic aciddiclofop, (+)-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoic acidthifensulfuron, 3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylic acidtribenuron, 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methylamino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidtriticale, X Triticosecale Wittmack ‘Florico,’ ‘Victoria,’ and 'Stan II’wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Yieldyield componentsherbicide tolerance2,4-Ddicambadiclofopthifensulfurontribenuron

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 1994, pp. 119 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Anderson, J. R. Jr. and Neuman, D. F. 1992. Corn: Coastal Plain. P. 70 in North Carolina Farm Enterprise Budget Guidelines. Misc. publ., North Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1987. 1987 Census of Agriculture. Commerce Dep., Bureau of the Census, Agric. Div., Crop Stat. Branch. Publ. AC87-A-51. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, DC. 415 p.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1992. Hog and pig report. U.S.D.A., Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., Publ. MTAN (12-92). U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, DC. 25 p.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. 1992. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics-1992. North Carolina Dep. Agric, State Stat. Div., Publ. No. 173. 76 p.Google Scholar
5. Anonymous. 1993. North Carolina Farm Income, 1990–1991. North Carolina Dep. Agric, State Stat. Div., Publ. No. 175. 24 p.Google Scholar
6. Anonymous. 1993. Poultry production and value. U.S.D.A., Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., Publ. POU 3-1(92). U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, DC. 11 p.Google Scholar
7. Bragg, D. B. and Sharby, T. F. 1970. Nutritive value of triticale for broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 66:90–97.Google Scholar
8. Coffey, M. T. and Gerrits, W. J. 1988. Digestibility and feeding value of B858 triticale for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 66:2728–2735.Google Scholar
9. Cornejo, S., Potocnjak, J., and Robinson, D. W. 1972. Comparative nutritional value of triticale for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 34:893 (abstract).Google Scholar
10. Dowler, C. C. 1991. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:426–443.Google Scholar
11. Hale, O. M. and Utley, P. R. 1985. Value of Beagle 92 triticale as a substitute for corn and soybean meal in the diet of pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 60:1272–1279.Google Scholar
12. Hale, O. M., Morey, D. D., and Myer, R. O. 1985. Nutritive value of Beagle 82 triticale for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 60:503–507.Google Scholar
13. Jarrett, R. E. 1989. Small grain on-farm test report, 1989. Misc. publ., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. 55 p.Google Scholar
14. Large, E. C. 1954. Growth stages in cereals: Illustration of the Feekes scale. Plant Pathol. 3:128–129.Google Scholar
15. Lewis, W. M., Worsham, A. D., and Jarrett, R. E. 1992. Small grain production guide—weed management. Publ. AG-419-11. North Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv., Raleigh, NC. 7 p.Google Scholar
16. Little, T. M. and Hills, F. J. 1975. The square root transformation. P. 113–116 in Statistical Methods in Agricultural Research. Univ. California, Davis.Google Scholar
17. Martin, D. A., Miller, S. D., and Alley, H. P. 1989. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) response to herbicides applied at three growth stages. Weed Technol. 3:90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Olson, P. J., Zalik, S., Breakey, W. J., and Brown, D. A. 1951. Sensitivity of wheat and barley at different stages of growth to treatment with 2,4-D. Agron. J. 43:77–83.Google Scholar
19. Ruiz, N., Marion, J. E., Miles, R. D., and Barnett, R. B. 1987. Nutritive value of new cultivars of triticale and wheat for broiler chick diets. Poult. Sci. 66:90–97.Google Scholar
20. Skovmand, B., Fox, P. N., and Villareal, R. L. 1984. Triticale in commercial agriculture: Progress and promise. Adv. Agron. 37:1–45.Google Scholar
21. Swan, D. G. 1975. Necessity for proper timing of applications of 2,4-D to winter wheat. Down Earth 31:23–25.Google Scholar