Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:37:45.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Herbicide Options for Virginia Buttonweed (Diodia virginiana) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven T. Kelly  and
G. Euel Coats
Steven T. Kelly*
Affiliation:
Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Winnsboro, LA 71295
G. Euel Coats
Affiliation:
Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Winnsboro, LA 71295
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: skelly@agctr.lsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Combinations of 0 to 1,120 g ae/ha 2,4-D plus 0 to 42 g ai/ha metsulfuron were evaluated in both field and greenhouse experiments. Addition of metsulfuron to 2,4-D increased Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana) fresh weight reduction in the greenhouse compared with 2,4-D alone, but reduction in fresh weight was not different from 32 g/ha or more of metsulfuron applied alone. In field experiments 5 wk after treatment (WAT), combinations of metsulfuron and 2,4-D did not control Virginia buttonweed greater than 32 g/ha or more of metsulfuron alone. No synergism for the combinations was observed. Field experiments conducted from 1991 to 1993 evaluated three-way combinations of herbicides for Virginia buttonweed control. Treatments included: 2,4-D plus mecoprop plus dicamba (five herbicide premixes), 2,4-D plus dichlorprop plus dicamba, 2,4-D plus MCPA plus dichlorprop, mecoprop plus MCPA plus dichlorprop, or 2,4-D plus mecoprop plus dichlorprop. Combinations containing at least 688 g/ha 2,4-D provided the most consistent Virginia buttonweed control 2 WAT. By 7 WAT, control was no more than 60% for any treatment. A separate experiment evaluated the effects of repeated applications of two- or three-way herbicide mixtures applied at least 5 wk apart when ground cover regrowth was 25%. Treatments included: 2,4-D plus dichlorprop plus dicamba ester, 2,4-D plus mecoprop plus dicamba amine, 2,4-D plus dichlorprop amine, or 2,4-D plus dichlorprop ester. Ground cover 1 yr following application of sequential treatments was 35% or less compared to 65% in the nontreated control. Following 2 yr of herbicide application, ground cover in the treated plots was 28% or less.

Keywords

2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic aciddicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic aciddichlorprop, (±)-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propanoic acidMCPA, (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acidmecoprop, (±)-2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)propanoic acidmetsulfuron, 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidVirginia buttonweed, Diodia virginiana (L.) # DIQVI2,4-DdicambadichlorpropmecopropMCPAmetsulfuronDIQVIDMA, dimethylamineIOE, isooctyl esterWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 246 - 251
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

Baird, J. H. 1989. The Biology of Virginia Buttonweed (Diodia virginiana L.). . Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 138 p.Google Scholar
Coats, G. E. 1986. Weed Control in Turfgrass. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Information Bull. 95. Mississippi State, MS. 28 p.Google Scholar
Coats, G. E., Jordan, J. H., and McGregor, J. T. 1985. Field Evaluation of Postemergence Herbicides for Virginia Buttonweed Control. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bull. 937. Mississippi State, MS. 9 p.Google Scholar
Darwent, A. L. and Lefkovitch, L. P. 1995. Control of several perennial weeds in creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra) grown for seed. Weed Technol. 9: 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickens, R. and Turner, D. L. 1985. Virginia buttonweed: an increasing problem in turf. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:102.Google Scholar
Dickens, R., Baird, J. H., and Turner, D. L. 1991. Herbicide combinations for control of Virginia buttonweed. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:195.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1996. Weed survey—southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 252–253.Google Scholar
Duble, R. L., Menn, W. G., Walker, J. R., and Beard, J. B. 1986. An Assessment of Herbicides for the Selective Control of Virginia Buttonweed in Texas Common St. Augustinegrass. Texas Turfgrass Res. College Station, TX. 30 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1987. Turfgrass species response to herbicides applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 1: 305–311.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. H. Jr. 1980a. Postemergence control of Virginia buttonweed in bermudagrass turf. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:31.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. H. Jr. 1980b. Postemergence Control of Virginia Buttonweed in Bermudagrass Turf. . Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 61 p.Google Scholar
McGregor, J. T. Jr. 1982. Herbicide Evaluations for Postemergence Control of Virginia Buttonweed. . Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 50 p.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1990. Influence of sulfonylurea and other herbicides on selected woody and herbaceous species. Weed Sci. 38: 249–255.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. D. 1979. Ten most troublesome weeds in turf. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:131.Google Scholar
Rippee, J. H. 1992. Efficacy, Uptake, and Translocation of POST Herbicides in Virginia Buttonweed (Diodia virginiana). . Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 59 p.Google Scholar