You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Chemical Weed Control in Dryland and Irrigated Chickpea
Drew J. Lyon and Robert G. Wilson
Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 2005), pp. 959-965
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3989277
Page Count: 7
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Field studies were conducted in 2003 and 2004 near Scottsbluff and Sidney, NE, to identify efficacious chemical weed-control options for irrigated and dryland chickpea production. Weed control had a greater relative effect on chickpea yield in the irrigated system than the dryland system, with yield from the hand-weeded check exceeding the nontreated check by 1,500% in the irrigated system and 87% in the dryland system. Imazethapyr, applied preemergence at the rate of 0.053 kg ai/ha, reduced plant height, delayed plant maturity, and caused leaf chlorosis. At Scottsbluff, preplant-incorporated ethalfluralin caused significant crop injury in 2003, but the ethalfluralin treatment also maintained weed densities 4 wk after crop emergence that were not significantly different than the hand-weeded check at both locations in 2003 and 2004. Treatments containing sulfentrazone provided a similar level of weed control but without any evidence of crop injury. Pendimethalin and pendimethalin + dimethenamid-P applied preemergence provided acceptable weed control in the irrigated system, where water was applied within 4 d after herbicide application, but did not provide acceptable control in the dryland system.
Weed Technology © 2005 Weed Science Society of America