ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of the effectiveness of different herbicides on weed invasion in the fields of triticale
More details
Hide details
1
Research Center of Agriculture and Natural Resources of Moghan, 5695113111, Parsabad, Iran
Submission date: 2012-07-19
Acceptance date: 2012-08-27
Corresponding author
Parviz Sharifi Ziveh
Research Center of Agriculture and Natural Resources of Moghan, 5695113111, Parsabad, Iran
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2012;52(4):435-439
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
One of the factors limiting crop growth is weeds. The weeds lead to a reduced performance of the crops. Chemical control
methods are considered appropriate for controlling weeds. Therefore, in the fight to control weeds in triticale, the performance of the
dual-purpose herbicide sulfosulfuron (Apirus®), mesosulfuron + idosulfuron(Atlantis®), metsulfuron methyl+sulfosulfuron (Total®)
with surfactant and isoproton + diflufenican (Panther®) from the sulfonylurea group, and narrow leaf herbicides clodinafob-
propargyl (Topik®), pinoxaden (New Axial®), diclofop-methyl (Iloxan®), pinoxaden + clodinafob-propagyl (Traxos®), fenoxaprop-p-ethyl + mefen-pyper-d-ethyl (PumaSuper®), tralkoksidim (Grasb®) with 1 liter oil, flam-prop-m-isopropyl (Suffix BW®), and control
treatment without herbicides were evaluated. The test was carried out in a randomized complete block design with four replications.
Spraying was carried out using a back sprayer. For evaluation of ocular damage, the European Weed Research Council (EWRC) standard method was used. According to the performed studies, the narrow leaves of wild oat and barnyard grass were the dominant
weeds. Results showed that all herbicide, except the herbicide tralkoksidim, were effective in weed control. The triticale yield was
maintained with the use of these herbicides and none of herbicide had an adverse effect on the crop. In the first weeks of herbicide
use, the triticale leaves appeared pale but this problem resolved over time. It seems that the herbicides discussed in this paper can be used on the triticale plant.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Adamczewski K. 2000. Weed control method development and perspectives of reduction of weed density. Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Roślin 40 (1): 101–112.
2.
Adamczewski K., Praczyk T. 1999. Strategy of weed control in small grain cereals. Pam. Puł. 114 (1): 5–13.
3.
Ahmad K., Shah Z., Khan I., Khan M., Khan M.Q. 1993. Effect of post-emergence herbicides application and hand weeding on wheat and weed pressure. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 6 (1–2): 40–45.
4.
Akhtar M., Hamayoun Q., Gill M.B., Nazir M.S. 1991. Comparative study of various crop management practices on the weed growth and wheat yield. Sarhad J. Agric.7 (2): 91–94.
7.
Azad B.S., Singh H., Gupta S.C. 1997. Effect of plant density, dose of herbicide and time onitrogen application on weed suppression and its efficiency in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Env. Ecol. 15 (3): 665–668.
8.
Faizabad Zare L. 1993. Effect of different times of harvesting forage crop characteristics, nutritional value of forage and grain yield of several varieties of barley and Triticale. Master’s thesis, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 95 pp.
9.
Fernandez-Quintanilla C., Leguizamon E.S., Navarrete L., del Arco M.J.S., Torner C., Lucas C. 2006. Integrating herbicide rate, barley variety and seeding rate for the control of sterile oat (Avena sterilis spp. Ludoviciana) in central Spain. Eur. J. Agron. 25 (3): 223–233.
10.
Hallgren E. 1991. New herbicides for control of annual grass weeds (and dicotolidon weeds) in cereals. Swedish Crop Protection Conference Weeds and Weeds Control 32: 173–189.
11.
Jamali M.R., Baghestani M.A., Fereydonfar M. 2010. Efficacy of two herbicides of Traxus and Axial in weed control barley fields in Fars province. 19th Conferences of Plant Protection of Iran. Plant Protection Institute, Tehran, Iran, 30 July – 1 August. 190 pp.
12.
Kumlehn J., Zimmermann G., Berger C., Marthe C., Hensel G. 2010. Triticeae cereals. Genetic Modification of Plants 64 (3): 287–306.
13.
Montazeri M., Zand E., Baghestani M.A. 2005. Weed control in wheat fields of Iran. Plant Pests and Diseases Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, 85 pp.
14.
Qureshi F.A. 1982. Weed problem of Pakistan. Identification and Control of Weed Manual, PARC, Islamabad: 5–8.
15.
Qureshi M.A., Jarwar A.D., Tunio S.D., Majeedano H.I. 2002. Efficacy of various Weed Management practices in wheat. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 8 (1–2): 63–69.
16.
SPSS. 2004. SPSS for Windows. SPSS INC., Chicago, Illinois.
17.
Stankowski S., Maciorowski R. 1996. Successive effect of herbicides on triticale seed germination and plant growth. p. 743–747. In: “Triticale: Today and Tomorrow” (H. Guedes-Pinto, N. Darvey, V.P. Carnide, eds.). Springer, 912 pp.
18.
Tabib M.H., Lorzadeh Sh., Arian nia N. 2007. Comparison of soil applied herbicides to control weeds in wheat leaves drawn in Khozestan Northern climates. Thesis of M.Sc. College of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Shoshtar Branch, 102 pp.
19.
Tomlin C.D. 2003. The Pesticide Manual. Bcpc (British Crop Protection Council), 1399 pp.
20.
Vaici M., Baghestani M.A., Sabeti P., Mohammadi A.R. 2008. Assess the impact of the new dual purpose herbicides of Total®(metsulfuron methyl+sulfosulfuron), to control weeds in wheat in Kermanshah.18th Conferences of Plant Protection of Iran.24–27 August, Bu ali sina University, 213 pp.
21.
Vencill W. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Weed Science Society of America, 217 pp.
22.
Wilkinson R.E. 1971. Research Methods in Weed Science. Southern Weed Science Society, 40 pp.
23.
Yasin M., Tanveer A., Iqbal, Z., Ali A. 2010. Effect of Herbicides on Narrow Leaved Weeds and Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). World Ac. Sci. Eng. Technol. 68 (2): 1280–1282.
24.
Zand E., Baghestani M.A., Dastaran F., Atri A.R., Labbafi M.R., Khaiyami M.M., Porbaig M. 2008. Investigation efficacy of some graminicides in control of resistant and susceptible ryegrass biotypes (Lolium rigidium L.) to acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibiting herbicides. J. Plant Prot. 22 (2): 129–145.