Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Item TypeItem Type
-
SubjectSubject
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersSourceLanguage
Done
Filters
Reset
3
result(s) for
"Chaetadelpha"
Sort by:
Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) control and winter wheat injury with picloram applied in fallow
2023
Rush skeletonweed is an invasive weed in the winter wheat–fallow production regions of the inland Pacific Northwest. The objectives of this study were to determine the dose response of rush skeletonweed to picloram applied in the fall or spring of the fallow year with either a broadcast or weed-sensing sprayer, and to evaluate injury and grain yield in the subsequent winter wheat crop from these fallow treatments. Field studies were conducted between 2019 and 2022. Fall treatments were applied at one site in 2019, and one site in 2020. Spring treatments were applied at two sites in 2021. Four picloram herbicide rates (0, 140, 280, and 560 g ae ha–1), were applied with either a weed-sensing precision applicator or with a standard broadcast spray applicator. Rush skeletonweed densities in the wheat crop following fall-applied treatments declined with increasing picloram rates at both sites. Treatments applied with the weed-sensing sprayer achieved similar efficacy to broadcast treatments with an average of 37% and 26% of the broadcast rate applied. Spring-applied broadcast treatments resulted in reduced rush skeletonweed densities in wheat with increasing picloram rates. Picloram rate had no apparent effect on rush skeletonweed density when applied in the spring with a weed-sensing sprayer; however, the weed-sensing sprayer applied just 16% and 9% of the broadcast rate. Winter wheat grain yields were not reduced by fall picloram applications. Grain yields were not reduced by spring applications of picloram with the weed-sensing sprayer; however, grain yields were reduced by spring broadcast applications of picloram at both locations, and grain yields declined as the picloram rate increased. Applying picloram in the fall of the fallow phase with a weed-sensing sprayer provides effective and economical control of rush skeletonweed with a low risk for crop injury and yield loss in the following winter wheat crop. Nomenclature: Picloram; rush skeletonweed, Chondrilla juncea L.; wheat, Triticum aestivum L.
Journal Article
Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea L.) control in fallow
2021
Rush skeletonweed is an invasive weed in winter wheat (WW)/summer fallow (SF) rotations in the low to intermediate rainfall areas of the inland Pacific Northwest. Standard weed control practices are not effective, resulting in additional SF tillage or herbicide applications. The objective of this field research was to identify herbicide treatments that control rush skeletonweed during the SF phase of the WW/SF rotation. Trials were conducted near LaCrosse, WA, in 2017–2019 and 2018–2020, and near Hay, WA, in 2018–2020. The LaCrosse 2017–2019 trial was in tilled SF; the other two trials were in no-till SF. Fall postharvest applications in October included clopyralid, clopyralid plus 2,4-D, clopyralid plus 2,4-D plus chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron, aminopyralid, picloram, and glyphosate plus 2,4-D. Spring treatments of clopyralid, aminopyralid, and glyphosate were applied to rush skeletonweed rosettes. Summer treatments of 2,4-D were applied when rush skeletonweed initiated bolting. Plant density was monitored through the SF phase in all plots. Picloram provided complete control of rush skeletonweed through June at all three locations. Fall-applied clopyralid, clopyralid plus 2,4-D, and clopyralid followed by 2,4-D in summer reduced rush skeletonweed through June at the two LaCrosse sites but were ineffective at Hay. In August, just prior to WW seeding, the greatest reductions in rush skeletonweed density were achieved with picloram and fall-applied clopyralid at the two LaCrosse sites. No treatments provided effective control into August at Hay. Wheat yield in the next crop compared to the nontreated control was reduced only at one LaCrosse site by a spring-applied aminopyralid treatment, otherwise no other reductions were found. Long-term control of rush skeletonweed in WW/SF may be achieved by a combination of fall application of picloram, after wheat harvest, followed by an effective burn-down treatment in August prior to WW seeding. Nomenclature: 2; 4-D; aminopyralid; chlorsulfuron; clopyralid; glyphosate; metsulfuron; picloram; rush skeletonweed; Chondrilla juncea L.; winter wheat; Triticum aestivum L.
Journal Article
Weed-sensing technology modifies fallow control of rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea)
2020
Rush skeletonweed is an aggressive perennial weed that establishes itself on land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and persists during cropping following contract expiration. It depletes critical soil moisture required for yield potential of winter wheat. In a winter wheat/fallow cropping system, weed control is maintained with glyphosate and tillage during conventional fallow, and with herbicides only in no-till fallow. Research was conducted for control of rush skeletonweed at two sites in eastern Washington, Lacrosse and Hay, to compare the effectiveness of a weed-sensing sprayer and broadcast applications of four herbicides (aminopyralid, chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron, clopyralid, and glyphosate). Experimental design was a split-plot with herbicide and application type as main and subplot factors, respectively. Herbicides were applied in the fall at either broadcast or spot-spraying rates depending on sprayer type. Rush skeletonweed density in May was reduced with use of aminopyralid (1.1 plants m–2), glyphosate (1.4 plants m–2), clopyralid (1.7 plants m–2), and chlorsulfuron + metsulfuron (1.8 plants m–2) compared with the nontreated check (2.6 plants m–2). No treatment differences were observed after May 2019. There was no interaction between herbicide and application system. Area covered using the weed-sensing sprayer was, on average, 52% (P < 0.001) less than the broadcast application at the Lacrosse location but only 20% (P = 0.01) at the Hay location. Spray reduction is dependent on foliar cover in relation to weed density and size. At Lacrosse, the weed-sensing sprayer reduced costs for all herbicide treatments except aminopyralid, with savings up to US$6.80 per hectare. At Hay, the weed-sensing sprayer resulted in economic loss for all products because of higher rush skeletonweed density. The weed-sensing sprayer is a viable fallow weed control tool when weed densities are low or patchy. Nomenclature: Aminopyralid; chlorsulfuron; clopyralid; glyphosate; metsulfuron; rush skeletonweed, Chondrilla juncea L.; winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.
Journal Article