Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T05:47:47.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Control in Corn (Zea mays) and Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with Dicamba and 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer ,
J. F. Swink  and
P. E. Heikes
E. E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
J. F. Swink
Affiliation:
Arkansas Valley Res. Center, Rocky Ford, CO 81067
P. E. Heikes
Affiliation:
Weed Res. Lab., Dep. Bot. and Plant Pathol., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) on irrigated land was studied by application of herbicides once in the fall and then only in the spring for the next 4 yr. Control of field bindweed 8 months after a fall application of 2.2 kg/ha of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) or 3.4 kg/ha of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] was 90 and 83%, respectively. Spring applications of 0.28 kg/ha of dicamba, 0.56 kg of 2,4-D, or the mixture of these two herbicides suppressed the growth of field bindweed similarly each year. By the fall of the fourth year, field bindweed covered an average of 9% of the soil surface in the plots that received both fall- and spring-applied herbicide treatments, 72% in plots that received only fall-applied herbicide treatments, and 80% in the untreated plots. Yield of corn (Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3306’) was significantly higher in all treated plots than in the untreated check plots in 1 out of 2 yr. Yield of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘Pioneer 833’] was not increased significantly in any treated plots, but in 1 yr the mixture of 0.28 kg/ha of dicamba plus 0.56 kg/ha of 2,4-D reduced yield significantly when this mixture was applied twice at these same rates in the spring.

Keywords

Weed controlfurrow irrigationcrop competitionweed competition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 1978 , pp. 665 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18:590–596.Google Scholar
2. Jones, I. B. and Evans, J. O. 1973. Control of Russian knapweed and field bindweed with dicamba, 2,4-D, and their combinations, with and without DMSO. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 26:39–43.Google Scholar
3. Phillips, W. M. 1961. Control of field bindweed by cultural and chemical methods. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1249. 30 pp.Google Scholar
4. Russ, O. G. and Anderson, L. E. 1960. Field bindweed control by combinations of cropping, cultivation, and 2,4-D. Weeds 8:397–401.Google Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. and Swink, J. F. 1971. Field bindweed control with dicamba and 2,4-D, and crop response to chemical residues. Weed Sci. 19:717–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Stahler, L. M. 1948. Shade and moisture as factors in competition between selected crops and field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis . J. Am. Soc. Agron. 40:490–502.Google Scholar
7. Timmons, F. L. 1949. Duration of viability of bindweed seed under field conditions and experimental results in the control of bindweed seedlings. Agron. J. 41:130–133.Google Scholar
8. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1959. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D, and competitive crops. Agron. J. 51:672–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar