Postemergence Broadleaf (Violet) Study

B. R. Bingaman and N. E. Christians

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of three experimental 'NB' herbicide formulations against violets, a 'hard-to-control' broadleaf weed species in turfgrass. The trial was conducted in an established area of 'common' Kentucky bluegrass at the Ames Public Cemetery on South Dakota Street in Ames, IA. The experimental design was a split plot with herbicide as the main plot treatment and number of applications as the subplot factor. Individual plot size was 5 x 10 ft with three replications. The 5 x 10 ft main plots were split into 2 - 5 x 5 ft subplots. Herbicide treatments and number of applications were randomly assigned to main and subplots, respectively. The experimental area was laid out so that each 5 x 10 ft plot had approximately 30-35% violet cover pre-treatment.

Three experimental formulations from PBI Gordon - EH1381, EH1382, and EH1383 were screened in single and sequential applications (21 days apart) with Trimec Classic, Millenium Ultra, and an untreated control. Initial applications were made on June 7 to the main 5 x 10 ft plot. Twenty one days later on June 28, the materials were re-applied at the same rate to one 5 x 5 ft subplot for each main plot. The treatments were applied using a carbon dioxide backpack sprayer equipped with TeeJet #8006 nozzles at a spray pressure of 30-40 psi. The formulations were mixed with water to a volume equivalent to 3 gal/1000 ft2.

Evaluations of violet damage were made from June 11 through July 18 (Table 1). Damage was assessed using a scale from 9 to 1 with 9 = no damage, 8 = slight discoloration, leaf cupping, and/or stem curling, 7 = more uniform symptoms from #8, 6 = all symptoms of #7 plus leaf mottling, 5 = all symptoms of #6 plus browning on leaves, 4 = all symptoms of #5 plus some dead leaves, 3 = more uniform symptoms of #4 with more dead leaves, 2 = all symptoms of #3 plus some dead plants, and 1 = all violets dead within the plot. After July 18, all remaining violets were assumed to have survived treatment and violet populations were assessed for each subplot. The number of violets per plot was counted on July 24, August 3, August 9, August 14, August 24 and August 31 (Table 2). The study was monitored for possible bluegrass phytotoxicity and turf quality for the duration of the study. No phytotoxicity was detected and turf quality was similar for all plots.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute Inc., 1989-1996) and the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedure. Treatment effects on weed populations and visual quality were tested using Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) test. In addition, orthogonal contrasts were conducted using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure to test for differences between individual treatments (Tables 3).

All herbicides caused significant levels of damage to violets from June 11 through July 11 (Table 1). The three 'EH' formulations provided higher levels of damage than Trimec Classic or Millenium Ultra on June 11, four days after the initial treatments were applied. By June 18, all treated violets expressed similar damage. On July 18, the violets in the untreated turf were beginning to succumb to the high temperatures and dry conditions so the damage levels caused by the treatments were not significant. However, there were differences in damage levels recorded between subplots (P > F = 0.0377). Those violets receiving the sequential treatment on June 28 recorded higher levels of damage than those treated only once on June 7.

There were no statistical reductions in the number of violets in the treated turf as compared with the untreated turf (Table 2). There were numerical differences between the violet counts among the main and subplot treatments but they were not statistically significant. By August 3, violets in the untreated areas were dying because of the high temperatures and low rainfall. As a result, treatment effects are hard to interpret from the data (Table 3). Mean counts show that there were numerical reductions as compared with the untreated controls but the differences are not statistically significant.

Table 1. Violet damage1 in turfgrass treated for the 2001 PBI Gordon Postemergence violet study.

 

 

Material

 

Rate

pts/A

Number of applications

June

11

June

18

June

21

July

3

July

11

July

18

Mean

1.

Untreated control

NA

NA

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

9.0

5.3

8.2

1s.

Untreated control

NA

NA

9.0

9.0

9.0

8.0

9.0

4.7

8.1

2.

EH 1382

5.5

1

4.7

5.3

5.7

4.3

6.3

6.3

5.4

2s.

EH 1382

5.5

2

4.7

5.3

5.7

3.7

5.0

6.0

5.1

3.

EH 1381

5.0

1

5.0

5.3

5.3

4.0

4.3

6.0

5.0

3s.

EH 1381

5.0

2

5.0

5.3

5.3

4.7

5.3

3.7

4.9

4.

EH 1383

4.0

1

4.7

5.7

5.7

3.0

5.7

5.7

5.1

4s.

EH 1383

4.0

2

4.7

5.7

5.7

3.3

6.3

3.7

4.9

5.

Trimec Classic

4.0

1

7.0

5.7

6.3

4.7

6.3

6.0

6.0

5s.

Trimec Classic

4.0

2

7.0

5.7

6.3

4.0

5.0

3.7

5.3

6.

Millenium Ultra

2.5

1

6.3

5.0

6.3

3.7

5.0

5.0

5.2

6s.

Millenium Ultra

2.5

2

6.3

5.0

6.3

3.7

4.3

2.7

4.7

 

LSD0.05

 

 

1.2

2.6

1.6

2.2

2.4

NS

0.9

1Damage was assessed using a scale from 9 to 1 with 9 = no damage, 8 = slight discoloration, leaf cupping, and/or stem curling, 7 = more uniform symptoms from #8, 6 = all symptoms of #7 plus leaf mottling, 5 = all symptoms of #6 plus browning on leaves, 4 = all symptoms of #5 plus some dead leaves, 3 = more uniform symptoms of #4 with more dead leaves, 2 = all symptoms of #3 plus some dead plants, and 1 = all violets dead within the plot.

The initial applications were made on June 7 to the entire 5 x 10 ft plot. The sequential applications applied 21 days later on June 28 were made to a 5 x 5 ft subplot.

NS = means are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Table 2. Violet counts by subplot treatment1 in turfgrass treated for the 2001 PBI Gordon Postemergence violet study.

 

 

Material

 

Rate

pts/A

Number of applications

July

24

August

3

August

9

August

14

August

24

August

31

Mean

1.

Untreated control

NA

NA

32.7

19.7

13.0

10.0

14.7

8.7

16.4

1s.

Untreated control

NA

NA

36.7

24.7

18.0

15.0

18.3

10.0

20.6

2.

EH 1382

5.5

1

24.0

14.7

12.7

11.3

8.0

7.7

13.1

2s.

EH 1382

5.5

2

17.3

12.3

12.7

13.7

11.0

10.3

12.9

3.

EH 1381

5.0

1

21.0

14.0

12.7

10.3

10.7

10.3

13.2

3s.

EH 1381

5.0

2

23.7

13.0

10.3

8.7

9.0

8.7

12.2

4.

EH 1383

4.0

1

22.0

13.3

11.7

10.7

12.0

8.0

12.9

4s.

EH 1383

4.0

2

13.0

10.0

8.7

4.7

7.3

8.7

8.7

5.

Trimec Classic

4.0

1

20.0

13.3

9.0

5.3

12.0

8.0

11.3

5s.

Trimec Classic

4.0

2

20.3

9.7

8.3

7.0

7.0

8.3

10.1

6.

Millenium Ultra

2.5

1

17.3

10.3

8.7

7.0

9.7

9.3

10.4

6s.

Millenium Ultra

2.5

2

8.7

6.0

5.3

4.7

2.7

3.7

5.2

 

LSD0.05

 

 

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

1These figures represent the number of violets per subplot.

The initial applications made on June 7 were to the entire 5 x 10 ft plot. The sequential applications applied 21 days later on

June 28 were made to a 5 x 5 ft subplot.

NS = means are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

 

Table 3. Violet counts by main plot treatment1 in turfgrass treated for the 2001 PBI Gordon Postemergence violet study.

 

 

Material

 

Rate

pts/A

July

24

August

3

August

9

August

14

August

24

August

31

Mean

1.

Untreated control

NA

34.7

22.2

15.5

12.8

16.5

9.3

18.5

2.

EH 1382

5.5

20.7

13.5

12.7

12.5

9.5

9.0

13.0

3.

EH 1381

5.0

22.3

13.5

11.5

9.5

9.8

9.5

12.7

4.

EH 1383

4.0

17.5

11.7

10.2

7.7

9.7

8.3

10.8

5.

Trimec Classic

4.0

20.2

11.5

8.7

6.2

9.5

8.2

10.7

6.

Millenium Ultra

2.5

13.0

8.2

7.0

5.8

6.2

6.5

7.8

 

LSD0.05

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

1These figures represent the number of violets per main plot.

The initial applications made on June 7 were to the entire 5 x 10 ft plot. The sequential applications applied 21

days later on June 28 were made to a 5 x 5 ft subplot.

NS = means are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.




Iowa State University ISU Horticulture:Publications:2002 Turfgrass Report College of Agriculture

Iowa State University

106 Horticulture Hall
Ames, Iowa 50011
Phone: (515) 294-2751
Fax: (515) 294-0730
Website or Department-related Questions/Comments: hortdept@iastate.edu
Plant Questions: hortline@iastate.edu

Contents ©1995-2003, ISU Horticulture Department