Control of Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) and Associated Weeds

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate control of 90- to 100-cm-tall ragweed parthenium in a noncropped situation in Haryana State, India, during 2000 and 2001. Atrazine, 2,4-D ethyl ester, atrazine plus 2,4-D, metribuzin, metsulfuron, chlorimuron, glufosinate with and without surfactant, glyphosate with and without surfactant, and glyphosate formulations MON 8793 and 8794 were sprayed on ragweed parthenium. Also, the effect of water quality was studied with flat-fan and flood-fan nozzles using glyphosate and its formulation MON 8793 against ragweed parthenium and associated weeds. Glyphosate MON 8793 and 8794 at 3.6 kg ae/ha provided excellent control of ragweed parthenium followed by glyphosate at 2.7 or 5.4 kg/ha, with no recovery until 18 wk after treatment (WAT). Addition of 0.1% v/v surfactant (MON 0818) to glyphosate at 2.7 kg/ha provided similar control to that of glyphosate alone at 5.4 kg/ha. Other herbicides failed to provide satisfactory control of ragweed parthenium. In the water quality study, glyphosate at 2.7 and 5.4 kg/ha and glyphosate MON 8793 at 2.7 and 3.6 kg/ha provided similar control of ragweed parthenium at 18 WAT. Glyphosate was antagonized less by tap water (0.45 mM Ca) than canal (0.7 mM Ca) and hand-pump water (1 mM Ca). Neither glyphosate nor glyphosate MON 8793 provided good control of purple nutsedge, velvetleaf, garden spurge, threelobe false mallow, jimsonweed, giant milkweed, Indian jujube, or tropical spiderwort, but crowfootgrass, green foxtail, sprawling signalgrass, and spiny amaranth were controlled. Glyphosate at 5.4 kg/ha and glyphosate MON 8793 at 3.6 kg/ha provided more than 80% control of bermudagrass at 8 WAT, which was significantly better than the 2.7 kg/ha rate. Flat-fan nozzles provided better efficacy of applied herbicides than flood-fan nozzles at 4 WAT on ragweed parthenium.

Effects and Management ofParthenium hysterophorus: A Weed of Global Significance

“…This method is a slow operation and currently used in noncropped areas. The control of different weeds through the use of classical biological agents, insects, and fungal plant pathogen is given in Table 2 [30, 41]. …”

Utility Potential ofParthenium hysterophorusfor Its Strategic Management

“…Several physical, cultural, chemical, and biological methods [9,25,26,37] are known for its control. Using combinations of these methods and following several preventive measures further aid in effective management of this troublesome weed.…”

“…Biological methods of Parthenium control offer best, long-term solution for the management of weed in an environment friendly manner. Several insects such as Zygogramma bicolorata (leaf beetle); Epiblema sternuana (stem galling moth); Listronotus setosipennis (seed feeding weevil); Smicronyx lutulentus (seed feeding weevil); Bucculatrix parthenica (leaf mining moth); Conotrachelus albocinereus (stem galling moth); Carmenta ithacae (stem boring moth); and Platophalonidia mystica (stem boring moth) have been reported to be used for biocontrolling Parthenium [9,25,37]. These arthropods attack different parts of the weed plant and damage caused by them varies with the stage of their life cycle, larval or adult.…”

Harmful Effects of Parthenium hysterophorus and Management Through Different Approaches”- A review

“…Singh et al 2004 considered that use of bio prospecting tools like using insects, microorganisms and competitive plants are the most economic way of managing P. hysterophorus . The new concept emerging in the use of botanical extracts which can affect germination and growth of P. hysterophorus.…”