Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T13:17:19.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) Response to Imazamox Rate and Application Timing in Herbicide-Resistant Winter Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert N. Stougaard ,
Carol A. Mallory-Smith  and
James A. Mickelson
Robert N. Stougaard*
Affiliation:
Montana State University, Northwestern Agricultural Research Center, Kalispell, MT 59901
Carol A. Mallory-Smith
Affiliation:
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331-3002
James A. Mickelson
Affiliation:
Montana State University, Southern Agricultural Research Center, Huntley, MT, 59037
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rns@montana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Kalispell, MT, and Corvallis, OR, to determine the optimum rate and application timing of imazamox for downy brome control in winter wheat. Crop injury occurred as a reduction in plant height and was minimal at Kalispell, never exceeding 10%. Crop injury at Corvallis was more severe and was dependant on application timing. No injury was observed with spring applications, but fall applications resulted in as much as 33% injury at the highest rate of imazamox. Fall applications generally provided more consistent control of downy brome, as evidenced by the lower dosage required to reduce downy brome dry weight by 50% (lower I50 values). Nonetheless, spring applications generally provided control comparable with that of fall applications when imazamox was applied at the highest rate. The one exception was at Corvallis during 1997 to 1998, where spring applications failed to provide adequate control of downy brome even at the highest rate applied. Although imazamox generally provided excellent control of downy brome, wheat yield response to downy brome interference was negligible, declining by less than 10% in the absence of imazamox. The absence of a yield response to downy brome interference was attributed to the lack of competition for soil moisture from downy brome under the high-rainfall conditions of the experiment.

Keywords

Imazamoxdowny brome, Bromus tectorum L. #3 BROTEwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Dose–responsereduced rates.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1043 - 1048
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L. 1996. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) emergence variability in a semiarid region. Weed Technol. 10:750–753.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A., Young, F. L., and Ogg, A. G. 1999. Selective control of jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical) with imazamox in herbicide-resistant wheat. Weed Technol. 13:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Hamman, W. M. 1998. Control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) with MON 37500. Weed Technol. 12:421–425.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W. and Stahlman, P. W. 1996. Dose responses of weeds and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to MON 37500. Weed Technol. 10:870–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geier, P. W., Stahlman, P. W., Northam, F. E., Miller, S. D., and Hageman, N. R. 1998. MON 37500 rate and timing affects downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 46:366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum . Ecol. Monogr 37:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, G. A. and Wilson, A. M. 1970. Competition for moisture among seedlings of annual and perennial grasses as influenced by root elongation at low temperatures. Ecology 51:530–534.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. P. and Peeper, T. F. 2003. MON 37500 application timing affects cheat (Bromus secalinus) control and winter wheat. Weed Sci. 51:231–236.Google Scholar
Morrow, L. A. and Stahlman, P. W. 1984. The history and distribution of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in North America. Weed Sci. 32:2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, J. C., Bunting, S. C., and Manoukian, M. E. 1999. Cheatgrass. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Pp. 175–188.Google Scholar
Newhouse, K. E., Smith, W. A., Starrett, M. A., Schaefer, T. J., and Singh, B. K. 1992. Tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides in wheat. Plant Physiol 100:882–886.Google Scholar
Peeper, T. F. 1984. Chemical and biological control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in wheat and alfalfa in North America. Weed Sci. 32: (Suppl.). 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pester, T. A., Nissen, S. J., and Westra, P. 2001. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazamox in jointed goatgrass and feral rye. Weed Sci. 49:607–612.Google Scholar
Rydrych, D. J. and Muzik, T. J. 1968. Downy brome competition and control in dryland wheat. Agron. J 60:279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 7-1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 675–711.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, S. L., Thill, D. C., Price, W. J., and Ball, D. A. 1998. Response of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and rotational crops to MON 37500. Weed Technol. 12:690–698.Google Scholar
Thill, D. C., Beck, K. G., and Callihan, R. H. 1984. The biology of downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 32:7–12.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A. 1966. Downy brome competition in winter wheat. Proc. N Cent. Weed Control conf. 20:22.Google Scholar