Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:21:45.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Control with Postemergence Herbicides in No-Tillage Glufosinate-Resistant Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aaron S. Franssen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
James J. Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kells@msu.edu

Abstract

Common dandelion has developed into a troublesome agronomic weed for no-tillage corn producers. A postemergence herbicide application is often required to reduce common dandelion competition. Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate 22 postemergence herbicide treatments for efficacy on established populations of common dandelion in no-tillage corn. All herbicides were applied to five- to six-collar corn at registered rates with typical adjuvants. At 28 d after treatment (DAT) the most effective treatments included glufosinate and mesotrione providing at least 76% control of common dandelion. All other herbicide treatments provided less than 40% common dandelion control 28 DAT. Common dandelion control was evaluated 56 DAT when regrowth of treated plants was observed for some herbicide treatments. AT 56 DAT, dicamba + diflufenzopyr was the most effective treatment, providing 83% control of common dandelion. In 2002, all herbicide treatments, with the exception of flumiclorac, resulted in corn yields greater than the nontreated.

Type
Research
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

Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Weisberg, S., and Hubbard, K. G. 1996. Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 44:7486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutt, T. E., Fawcett, R. S., Harvey, R. G., and Jorgensen, N. A. 1977. Effect of some perennial weeds on forage quality. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 57.Google Scholar
Jasa, P. J., Shelton, D. P., Jones, A. J., and Dickey, E. C. 1991. Conservation Tillage and Planting Systems. Lincoln, NE Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska. 8.Google Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:365370.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Dobbels, A. F. 2003. Preplant herbicides for control of dandelion in corn and soybeans. North Cent. Weed Sci. Proc. 58:44.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1989. Weed control during cicer milkvetch establishment and yields in subsequent years. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:213222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R. E., Blevins, R. L., Thomas, G. W., Frye, W. W., and Phillips, S. H. 1980. No-tillage agriculture. Science 208:11081113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheaffer, C. C. and Wyse, D. L. 1982. Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) control in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Sci. 30:216220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr 1985. Principles of weed control for reduced-tillage corn production. in Weise, A.F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems: Weed Science Society of America Mongraph 2. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 2640.Google Scholar
Tripplett, G. B. Jr, Van Keuren, R. W., and Walker, J. D. 1977. Influence of 2,4-D, pronamide, and simazine on dry matter production and botanical composition of an alfalfa-grass sward. Crop Sci. 17:6165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar