Glufosinate Antagonizes Clethodim Control of Goosegrass (<i>Eleusine indica</i>)

Burke, Ian C.; Askew, Shawn D.; Corbett, Jerry L.; Wilcut, John W.

doi:10.1614/wt-04-214r1.1

Cited by 31 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These data indicate that to minimize yield loss, control of volunteer corn is needed before it is 46 cm tall, although the plant can be controlled by later-season applications. Unlike a study by Burke et al (2005) that reported antagonism when clethodim and glufosinate were applied together to goosegrass (Eleusine indica) vs. clethodim applied alone, we saw . 96% control with EPOST timings of either rate.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 98%

Yield Loss and Management of Volunteer Corn in Soybean

Alms

Moechnig²,

Vos

et al. 2016

Weed technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book was published by iGrow, a service of SDSU Extension. For more information in the fields of agriculture, farming and rural living available in print, electronically, or on-line, visit iGrow.org.Information in this book is intended to be a guideline for label information, but not a label substitute. Pesticide product (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) labels can change at any time. Applicators must follow label procedures when applying a pesticide product (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides). It is particularly important to be sure pesticide products (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) are being applied in the correct environments as described on the label (e.g. Right-of-way, pasture, cropland, non-crop, etc.), environmental precautions are being followed (rate restrictions, applications on or near surface water or shallower water tables, applications near trees, etc.), grazing/haying restrictions, and others. See the "Herbicide use restrictions" section near the back of this publication for more detailed information regarding restrictions associated with specific products.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 98%

Yield Loss and Management of Volunteer Corn in Soybean

Alms

Moechnig²,

Vos

et al. 2016

Weed technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is consistent with previous studies that have reported antagonism of the ACCase-inhibiting herbicides when tank mixed with some broadleaf herbicides (Culpepper et al 1998(Culpepper et al , 1999Holshouser and Coble 1990;Vidrine et al 1995). For instance, Burke et al (2005) reported a 50% reduction in goosegrass . An early-POST followed by a late-POST application of glufosinate improved volunteer corn control !…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…According to the label, a single glufosinate application up to 740 g ai ha À1 can be made in soybean, with a cumulative 1,340 per growing season (Anonymous 2014). Earnest et al (1998) (Burke et al 2005;Gardner at al. 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Herbicide Programs for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Volunteer Corn in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean

Chahal

Jhala

2015

Weed technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) volunteer corn is a significant problem weed in soybean grown in rotation with corn in the midwestern United States and eastern Canada. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of glufosinate applied in single or sequential applications compared with acetylcoenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors applied alone or tank mixed with glufosinate for controlling GR volunteer corn in glufosinate-resistant soybean. At 15 d after early-POST (DAEP), ACCase inhibitors applied alone controlled volunteer corn 76 to 93% compared to 71 to 82% control when tank mixed with glufosinate. The expected volunteer corn control achieved by tank mixing ACCase inhibitors and glufosinate was greater than the glufosinate alone, indicating that glufosinate antagonized ACCase inhibitors at 15 DAEP, but not at later rating dates. ACCase inhibitors applied alone or tank mixed with glufosinate followed by late-POST glufosinate application controlled volunteer corn and green foxtail ! 97% at 30 DAEP. Single early-POST application of glufosinate controlled common waterhemp and volunteer corn 53 to 78%, and green foxtail 72 to 93% at 15 DAEP. Single as well as sequential glufosinate applications controlled green foxtail and volunteer corn greater than or equal to 90%, and common waterhemp greater than 85% at 75 d after late-POST (DALP). Contrast analysis suggested that glufosinate applied sequentially provided greater control of volunteer corn at 15 and 75 DALP compared to a single application. Similar results were reflected in volunteer corn density and biomass at 75 DALP. Volunteer corn interference did not affect soybean yield, partly because of extreme weather conditions (hail and high winds) in both years of this study. Nomenclature: Clethodim; fenoxaprop-P; fluazifop-P; glufosinate; quizalofop-P; sethoxydim; common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer; green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.; volunteer corn, Zea mays L. Key words: Antagonism, herbicide interaction, resistance management, weed control.El maíz voluntario resistente a glyphosate (GR) es un problema significativo de malezas en soja producida en rotación con maíz en el centro oeste de los Estados Unidos y en el este de Canadá. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la eficacia de glufosinate aplicado solo o en aplicaciones secuenciales comparado con inhibidores de acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) aplicados solos o en mezclas en tanque con glufosinate para el control de maíz GR voluntario en soja resistente a glufosinate. A 15 d después de la aplicación POST temprana (DAEP), los inhibidores de ACCase aplicados solos controlaron el maíz voluntario 76 a 93% comparado con 71 a 82% de control con la mezcla en tanque con glufosinate. El control esperado de maíz voluntario con las mezclas en tanque con ACCase y glufosinate fue mayor que el de glufosinate solo, lo que indicó que glufosinate antagonizó a los inhibidores de ACCase a 15 DAEP, pero no en fechas de evaluación posteriores. Los inhibidores de AC...

show abstract

“…Goosegrass control efficacy is effected, among other variables by the maturity of the plant. Previous research noted a reduction in control at the one-to two-tiller and four-to six-tiller growth stage, compared with the two-to four-leaf growth stage (Burke et al, 2005). McCarty (1991) noted differences in goosegrass control with diclofop based on goosegrass mowing height.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Goosegrass Control and Turfgrass Injury Following Metribuzin and Topramezone Application with Immediate Irrigation

Kerr¹,

McCarty²,

Cutulle³

et al. 2019

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goosegrass (Eleusine indica L. Gaertn.) is a problematic C4 weedy grass species, occurring in the warmer regions of the world where it is difficult to selectively control without injuring the turfgrass. Furthermore, control efficacy is affected by plant maturity. End-user options for satisfactory goosegrass control has decreased; thus, the need for developing management techniques to improve the selectivity of POST goosegrass control options in turfgrass systems is ever increasing. One possible means of providing control, yet maintaining turf quality is immediately incorporating applied products via irrigation. Greenhouse and field trials were conducted in Pickens County, SC, with the objectives of 1) evaluating turfgrass injury following use of POST goosegrass control options; 2) assessing if irrigating (0.6 cm) immediately following the herbicide application reduces injury of ‘Tifway 419’ bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. × Cynodon transvaalensis Burtt-Davy]; and 3) determining if immediate irrigation influences goosegrass control at one- to three-tiller and mature growth stage. Following the application of herbicide treatments, irrigation was applied (+) or not applied (−). Treatments included the following: control (+/− irrigation); topramezone at 12.3 g a.i./ha (+/− irrigation); metribuzin at 420 g a.i./ha (+/− irrigation); and topramezone plus metribuzin (+/− irrigation) at 12.3 and 420 g a.i./ha. Irrigation treatment had minimum effect on greenhouse-grown goosegrass biomass, all treatments provided >85% control of 1- to 3-tiller goosegrass plants. However, control for mature plants was <50% for topramezone- and 60% to 70% for metribuzin-containing treatments. In field studies, at 1 week after treatment (WAT), the irrigated metribuzin and topramezone plus metribuzin had ≈37% and ≈16%, respectively, less goosegrass control vs. nonirrigated treatments. At 2WAT, irrigated metribuzin and irrigated topramezone plus metribuzin–treated plots, had ≈50% less mature goosegrass control vs. nonirrigated treatments. Irrigated herbicide treatments, however, experienced ≈23% less turfgrass injury at this time. At 4 WAT, irrigated metribuzin- and irrigated topramezone plus metribuzin–treated plots experienced reduced mature goosegrass control by ≈65% and ≈59%, respectively. Overall, incorporating POST herbicide applications via 0.6 cm of irrigation reduced turfgrass injury by at least 20% for all herbicide treatments, while maintaining goosegrass control.

show abstract

Glufosinate Antagonizes Clethodim Control of Goosegrass (Eleusine indica)

Cited by 31 publications

References 34 publications

Yield Loss and Management of Volunteer Corn in Soybean

Yield Loss and Management of Volunteer Corn in Soybean

Herbicide Programs for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Volunteer Corn in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean

Goosegrass Control and Turfgrass Injury Following Metribuzin and Topramezone Application with Immediate Irrigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About