MH as a Roadside Grass Retardant

Foote, L. E.; Himmelman, B. F.

doi:10.1017/s0043174500048359

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the weeds were broadleaf species. Any chemical treatment that results in greater weed infestation may require the concurrent application of an appropriate herbicide as has been reported by other researchers (5,6).…”

Section: Greenhouse Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses¹

Elkins¹,

Tweedy²,

Suttner

1974

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical growth retardant treatments have been used on a limited scale to decrease vegetative growth and reduce mowing maintenance requirements of turfgrasses. A number of experimental chemical retardants have been developed recently. Three greenhouse experiments and five field studies were conducted from 1970 to 1972 at Southern Illinois University to evaluate experimental and commercial chemical growth retardants on several species and varieties of intensively managed turfgrass. Seven chemical retardants were tested in the greenhouse with potted Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and in field studies with Kentucky bluegrass and other species. Treated grasses were evaluated weekly as to growth reduction, and on selected dates as to color maintenance, stand losses, and weed infestations. MON‐820 (N‐phosphonomethylimini‐diacetic acid) retarded growth of Kentucky bluegrass more than Slo‐Gro (diethanolamine salt of 6‐hydroxy‐3‐(2H)‐pyridazinone; maleic hydrazide or MH). However, losses of the green color often were greater with MON‐820 treatments than with MH treatments. The responses of MBR‐6033 (3‐trifluoromethyl‐sulfonamido‐p‐acetotoluidide) and MON‐845 [N,N‐Bis (phosphonomethyl) glycine] were similar to those of MON‐820 and MH. MON‐139 (phosphonomethylglycine, isopropylammonium salt) and MON‐464 (phosphonomethylglycine, calcium salt) were phytotoxic and caused pronounced color losses and grass stand reductions. High rates of C‐19490 (chemical configuration not released by CIBA GEIGY Corp.) were required to retard grass growth. Pronounced color losses of the grass, serious stand reductions, and resulting weed infestations occured after use of higher rates of several chemicals. A concurrent herbicide application may be necessary to control weeds in Kentucky bluegrass plots treated with certain growth retardants. Residual chemical‐retarding effects were noted in autumn‐treated plots when they were evaluated in early spring of the next year. However, few effects were observed in autumn evaluations of spring‐treated plots. MON‐820 treatments evoked marked growth reduction of a number of Kentucky bluegrass varieties and with varieties of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.), and zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steud.). Differential varietal and species responses were noted with a given rate of MON‐820. These responses complicate the process of recommending a general chemical rate for a wide array of turfgrasses. Most experimental and commercial growth retardants tested showed some degree of phytotoxicity on several intensively managed turfgrasses. Their use would be more useful on rough turfgrass areas such as highway roadbanks than on home lawns and similar areas.

show abstract

Section: Greenhouse Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses¹

Elkins¹,

Tweedy²,

Suttner

1974

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PGRs have historically been effective for growth suppression of numerous warm-and cool-season turfgrass species Penner 1998a, 1998b;Johnson 1989aJohnson , 1989bJohnson , 1990Johnson , 1992Johnson , 1993Johnson and Murphy 1991;Ruemmele et al 1988). Additionally, studies have specifically reported the effectiveness of PGRs on turfgrasses located in low-maintenance turfgrass areas and along roadsides (Elkins 1974;Foote and Himmelman 1971;Yelverton et al 1997). These studies determined that PGRs could provide suppression of seedheads and vegetative growth with little or no reduction in turfgrass quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Application Placement Equipment for Tall Fescue (Lolium Arundinaceum) Growth and Seedhead Suppression

Hixson¹,

Gannon²,

Yelverton³

2007

Weed Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field research was conducted to evaluate plant growth-regulator efficacy for tall fescue growth and seedhead suppression applied using application placement equipment. Specially designed equipment outfitted with fluid application systems applies low-volume plant growth regulator directly on plant foliage, reducing opportunity for drift and visible application. Wet-blade mowers are equipped to apply plant growth regulators and mow in a single pass, whereas rotary-wick applicators simply wipe chemicals directly on uncut vegetation. Therefore, a wet-blade, rotary-wick, and broadcast sprayer system were chosen to apply imazapic at three rates (9, 35, and 53 g ai/ha), and a mefluidide + chlorsulfuron tank mix at 7 + 140 g ai/ha to tall fescue roadsides for vegetative growth and seedhead suppression. Experiments were conducted during the spring and summer of 2004 in central and western North Carolina. Tall fescue was slightly injured and discolored by all treatments but fully recovered by 2 mo after treatment. Imazapic suppressed new vegetative growth 3 mo after treatment compared with the nonmowed–nontreated control (16.1 cm of growth) and the mowed–nontreated control (21.1 cm) when applied with the rotary-wick applicator (8.5 cm) and broadcast sprayer (6.2 cm). However, differences in vegetative height primarily occurred when application placement equipment treatments were compared with nontreated vegetation as opposed to mowed–nontreated plants. Although mowed–nontreated and wet-blade–treated plots had more new vegetative growth, nonmowed–nontreated plots still consistently had the greatest vegetative height. Seedhead suppression ranged from 87 to 100% when compared with the nonmowed–nontreated control, with wet-blade treatments consistently providing the least-effective seedhead suppression. Overall, application placement equipment did not improve plant growth-regulator efficacy when compared with the foliar broadcast spray.

show abstract

“…Plant growth regulators (PGRs) can reduce significantly the costs associated with maintaining turf (Foote and Himmelman 1971). The scope of PGR use in turf ranges from vegetative and seedhead suppression of roadside grasses to mowing reduction of golf course greens mown as low as 0.3 cm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Dioxide Exchange Rate and Chlorophyll Content of Turfgrasses Treated with Flurprimidol or Mefluidide

Gaussoin

Branham

Flore

1997

J Plant Growth Regul

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are being used increasingly for high maintenance turf production. A greenhouse and growth chamber study was conducted to determine the effect of two PGRs, mefluidide and flurprimidol, on the carbon dioxide exchange rate, chlorophyll content, and specific leaf weight of annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass. Rate-response and time course studies were conducted. In the rate-response study, increasing flurprimidol rates caused a linear decrease in the carbon dioxide exchange rate (CER). Mefluidide had no effect on the CER in the rate-response experiment but did cause a significant drop in the CER at 4 and 8 days after treatment (DAT) in the time course study. Both PGRs increased chlorophyll content at 16 DAT in the time course study. In the rate-response study, chlorophyll content displayed a quadratic response to an increasing mefluidide rate. The 0.28 kg ha −1 rate of mefluidide increased the chlorophyll content to 46 g cm −2 from 21.5 g cm −2 for control plants. Both PGRs increased specific leaf weight, although for flurprimidol the effect was significant only at the 0.1 level of probability. PGRs decreased the CER and increased the chlorophyll content and specific leaf weight for both species tested. The physiologic effects measured were short lived, and so the physiologic significance of these changes is difficult to determine without further research.

show abstract

MH as a Roadside Grass Retardant

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses¹

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses¹

Efficacy of Application Placement Equipment for Tall Fescue (Lolium Arundinaceum) Growth and Seedhead Suppression

Carbon Dioxide Exchange Rate and Chlorophyll Content of Turfgrasses Treated with Flurprimidol or Mefluidide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

MH as a Roadside Grass Retardant

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses1

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses1

Efficacy of Application Placement Equipment for Tall Fescue (Lolium Arundinaceum) Growth and Seedhead Suppression

Carbon Dioxide Exchange Rate and Chlorophyll Content of Turfgrasses Treated with Flurprimidol or Mefluidide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses¹

Chemical Regulation of Grass Growth. II. Greenhouse and Field Studies with Intensively Managedd Turfgrasses¹