Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:31:18.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Control of Napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) with Tillage and Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey ,
Theodore M. Webster ,
Xiao Li ,
William Anderson  and
George S. Cutts III
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science Department, University of Georgia, 2360 Rainwater Road, Tifton, GA 31793
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 2747 Davis Road, Tifton, GA 31793
Xiao Li
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
William Anderson
Affiliation:
Crop Genetics and Breeding Research, 115 Coastal Way, Tifton, GA 31793
George S. Cutts III
Affiliation:
Line Development Breeder, Monsanto Corporation, 2 Vermeulen Street, Petit, Benoni 1512, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Napiergrass has potential as a cellulosic biofuel crop because of its rapid growth habit in the southern United States. However, it is also listed as a potential invasive species by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. For field renovation, information about napiergrass control in response to tillage and herbicides is required. Field studies were initiated to evaluate control of napiergrass established in fields for over 3 yr at Plains, GA, and Tifton, GA. For tillage and POST herbicides, imazapyr plus glyphosate consistently controlled napiergrass relative to diclosulam plus glyphosate, sulfentrazone plus glyphosate, or tillage in terms of visual injury, stem height and dry biomass reduction. One application of imazapyr plus glyphosate controlled napiergrass 74 and 94%, and reduced plant stem height to 6 and 15% of the nontreated control. When diclosulam plus glyphosate, sulfentrazone plus glyphosate, or tillage was used alone with no sequential herbicides, napiergrass control ranged from 12 to 33%; when these control tactics were followed by two sequential applications of either sethoxydim or glyphosate, napiergrass control varied from 45 to 99%. Reductions in plant heights were reflective of injury 47 d after final herbicide applications (May/June). Napiergrass yield in dry biomass production was reduced by imazapyr plus glyphosate ≥ 86% relative to the nontreated control (NTC). Diclosulam plus glyphosate, sulfentrazone plus glyphosate, or tillage alone was not effective in reducing napiergrass dry biomass yields ranging from 1 to 47% compared with the NTC; when these treatments were followed by sequential applications of sethoxydim or glyphosate, napiergrass dry biomass was reduced 46 to 91% compared with the NTC. Tillage plus two applications of sethoxydim or glyphosate exhibited control potential because they provided levels of napiergrass control similar to imazapyr-based treatments. Tillage plus multiple applications of sethoxydim or glyphosate offers flexibility to crop rotations as compared with the residual herbicide imazapyr, which has many crop rotation restrictions because of carryover concerns.

Keywords

Diclosulamglyphosateimazapyrsethoxydimsulfentrazonenapiergrass, Pennisetum purpureum SchumachBiofuel cropherbicideinvasive species
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 393 - 400
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, EK, Voigt, TB, Bollero, GA, Hager, AG (2011) Miscanthus giganteus response to tillage and glyphosate. Weed Technol 25:356–362 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2010) Strongarm® herbicide product label. Indianapolis, IN Dow AgroSciences LLC Google Scholar
Anonymous (2011) Spartan 4F® herbicide product label. Philadelphia, PA FMC Corporation Google Scholar
Anonymous (2012) Arsenal® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Corporation Google Scholar
Anonymous (2015). Pennisetum purpureum. USDA plant profiles. http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=PEPU2. Accessed May 27, 2015Google Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Enloe, SF, Loewenstein, NJ, Price, AJ, Wehtje, G, Miller, HJ (2014) Pushing toward cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) patch eradication: the influence of herbicide treatment and application timing on cogongrass rhizome elimination. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:398–407 Google Scholar
Bailey, WA, Wilcut, JW (2003) Tolerance of imidazolinone-resistant corn (Zea mays) to diclosulam. Weed Technol 17:60–64 Google Scholar
Barney, JN (2014) Bioenergy and invasive plants: quantifying and mitigating future risks. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:199–209 Google Scholar
Burton, GW (1989) Registration of ‘Merkeron’ napiergrass. Crop Sci 29:1327 Google Scholar
Cutts, GS, Webster, TM, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Lee, RD, Tubbs, RS, Anderson, WF (2011) Herbicide effect on napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) control. Weed Sci 59:255–262 Google Scholar
Duke, JA (1983) Pennisetum purpureum K. Schumach.: Handbook of Energy Crops. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/pennisetum_purpureum.html. Accessed November 18, 2014Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Loewenstein, NJ (2015) Eradication and control of bioenergy feedstocks: what do we really know? Pages 113–133 in Quinn, L, Matlaga, DP, Barney, JN, eds. Bioenergy and Biological Invasions: Ecological, Agronomic and Policy Perspectives on Minimizing Risk. Wallingford, UK CAB. 165 pGoogle Scholar
[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Fact Sheet: EPA Proposes New Regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond. Washington, DC EPA420-F-09-023 http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003J0G.txt. Accessed November 18, 2014Google Scholar
[GAEMN] Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network (2012) Weather Data for Plains and Tifton, Georgia. http://www.griffin.uga.edu/bae/. Accessed December 12, 2012Google Scholar
Grownwald, JW (1991) Lipid biosynthesis inhibitors. Weed Sci 39:435–449 Google Scholar
Jacobs, J (2012) Is the boom-time over for US renewables? Petrol Economist 79:29 Google Scholar
Judge, CA, Neal, JC, Derr, JF (2005) Response of Japanese stiltgrass to application timing, rate, and frequency of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 19:912–917 Google Scholar
Knoll, JE, Anderson, WF (2012) Vegetative propagation of napiergrass and energycane for biomass production the Southeastern United States. Agron J 104:518–522 Google Scholar
Li, X, Grey, TL, Blanchett, BH, Lee, RD, Webster, TM, Vencill, WK (2013) Tolerance evaluation of vegetatively established Miscanthus × giganteus to herbicides. Weed Technol 27:735–740 Google Scholar
Lopez, Y, Seib, J, Woodard, K, Chamusco, K, Sollenberger, L, Gallo, M, Flory, SL, Chase, C (2014) Genetic diversity of biofuel and naturalized napiergrass. Invasive Plant Sci Manage 7:229–236 Google Scholar
Mack, RN (2008) Evaluating the credits and debits of a proposed biofuel species: giant reed (Arundo donax) Weed Sci 56:883–888 Google Scholar
Nagasuga, K (2005) Acclimation of biomass productivity to light intensity in napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) plant. Bull Inst Trop Agric Kyushu Univ 28:15–20 Google Scholar
Omielan, J, Gumm, D, Witt, W (2012) Evaluation of management options for control of Chinese silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis Anders.). Poster in Proceedings of the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Annual Meeting. Gainesville, FL SE-EPPC http://www2.ca.uky.edu/pss/weeds/ivm/pdf/Miscanthus%20Poster%20for%20AL.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2014Google Scholar
[PIER] Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (2012) Pennisetum purpureum . http://www.hear.org/pier/species/pennisetum_purpureum.htm. Accessed January 6, 2015Google Scholar
Patten, K (2002) Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) control with imazapyr. Weed Technol 16:826–832 Google Scholar
Ruffner, EM, Barnes, TG (2012) Evaluation of herbicide and disking to control invasive bluestems in a South Texas Coastal Prairie. Rangeland Ecol Manage 65:277–238Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Sumner, HR, Hellwig, RE (1988) Crushing rolls to accelerate napiergrass drying. Biomass 15:1–9 Google Scholar
Woodard, KR, Prine, GM, Bates, DB, Chynoweth, DP (1991) Preserving elephantgrass and energycane biomass as silage for energy. Bioresour Technol 36:253–259 Google Scholar
Woodard, KR, Sollenberger, LE (2008) Production of Biofuel Crops in Florida: Elephantgrass. Gainesville FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension, University of Florida Publication SS-AGR-297. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag302. Accessed November 18, 2014Google Scholar
Wright, LL (1994) Production technology status of woody and herbaceous crops. Biomass Bioenergy 6:191–209 Google Scholar
von Caemmerer, S, Furbank, RT (2003) The C4 pathway: an efficient CO2 pump. Photosynth Res 77:191–207 Google Scholar