Investigating the Effect of U46 Combi Fluid and Bromicide MA Herbicides in Different Growth Stages of Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) on Weeds Control and Yield of Dryland Wheat

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

Article 6, Volume 23, Issue 1 - Serial Number 77, March 2025, Pages 77-90   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jcesc.2024.87849.1322

Authors

S Porheidar Ghafarbi^{* 1}; J Jafarzadeh¹; G. R Ghahramanian¹; M Kohestani²

¹Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Maragheh, Iran

²Department of Plant Production Engineering and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Maragheh University, Maragheh, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is important in the food regime of three-quarters of the world's population because it is nutritious and cheap compared to other similar foods. The competition between wheat and weeds is considered as one of the most important limitations of global wheat production. In Iran, weeds are of particular importance in reducing wheat yield, and according to the surveys, the average damage caused by weeds in the country's wheat fields is 23%. The most common way to manage wheat weeds is herbicide application. Every crop resists herbicides at a given growth stage, otherwise, herbicide application will damage the main crop. In recent years, the most frequent broadleaf herbicides used for weed chemical control in wheat are 2-4-D + MCPA (U46 combi fluid). To apply the 2,4-D herbicide, wheat should be at the tillering to the appearance of the first visible node stage. Application of 2,4-D after the first node will cause spike deformation and yield reduction due to the adverse effect of herbicide on sporogenesis. This study investigated different application times effects of 2-4-D + MCPA (U46combifluid) and Bromoxynil + MCPA (Bromicide MA) on winter wheat yield and weed control. The study aimed to determine the application time of the best herbicide with minimal damage on dryland wheat.
Materials and Methods
To investigate the effect of hormone herbicides on weeds and the yield of dryland bread wheat in different vegetative growth stages in cold dryland areas, a field experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design arrangement with four replications during 2021-23 cropping seasons at the Dryland Agriculture Research Institute, Maragheh, East Azerbaijan. Treatments included the application of 2-4-D + MCPA (U46combifluid) and Bromoxynil + MCPA (Bromicide MA) (1.5 L ha^-1) at the tillering (Z29), the 2^nd   node (Z32), and the booting stages (Z45) with two control treatments of weeding (weed infested) and no weeding (weed free). The Varan wheat cultivar was sown at a depth of 4–6 cm with a seeding density of 380 seeds per square meter. To evaluate weed type and density (plant m^-2), sampling was done 30 days after herbicide application. The crop was harvested at full maturity to collect data for grain yield and a thousand grain weight and grain/spike. After checking the normality of the data, they were analyzed with GenStat (V.12) software and the mean comparison was performed by the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at the 5% probability level.
Results and Discussion
The results indicated that the weed growth time is affected by the rainfall in dryland conditions so that in the 2021-2 year, the main spring precipitations occurred in May while in the 2022-23 year, it happened in April. Therefore, for the first cropping season, the highest weed density was recorded in the second   node stage whereas at the tillering stage in the second cropping season. In the first year, due to lower rainfall, and drought stress, a further decrease in wheat yield was observed in response to the delayed herbicide application so that it was higher in the 2-4-D + MCPA herbicide treatment. In the 2021-22 year, the lowest yields were recorded for 2-4-D + MCPA and Bromoxynil + MCPA herbicides in the booting stage with 1568 and 1710 kg ha^-1, respectively. In the 2022-23 year, the lowest grain yield was observed for 2-4-D + MCPA in the second node, and booting stages, respectively, 1701 and 1747 kg ha^-1.
Conclusion
Based on the results, wheat is more sensitive to delayed application of 2-4-D + MCPA and reduces wheat yield more, in contrast, it is more tolerant to bromoxynil + MCPA herbicide (Bromicide MA), and it can be applied up to the 2^nd node stage (Z32). 

Keywords

Biomass; Chemical control; Density; Dryland

References

1. Al-Khatib, K. (1995). Weed control in wheat. Washington State University, Pullman, United States.
2. Beuerlein, J. E. (2007). Wheat growth stages and associated management. The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States.
3. Askari, K., Dastan, S., Ajamnourozi, H., & Ghanbari Malidreh, A. (2016). The effect of grain growth components and yield components on grain yield of wheat cultivars in climatic conditions of Golestan province. Journal of Plant Crop Sciences, 2, 33-44. (in Persian)
4. Chegeni, H. (2011). Effect of plant density on yield and yield components of wheat cultivars. Agronomy Journal Pajouhesh and Sazandegi, 104, 9-21. (in Persian with English abstract(
5. Dehghan Benadaki, M. (2017). Management of weeds in wheat fields. Jihad Agricultural Higher Educational Institution.Tehran, Iran. 69 p. )in Persian).
6. Farahani, E., & Arzani, A. (2006). Study on genetic diversity of culltivars and F1 hybrids using agronomic and morphologic traits. Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 10(4), 341-354. (in Persian).
7. Faizi Asl, V., Fatut, A., Astarai, A., Lakzian, A., Mir Mousavi Shlamani, A., & Khorasani, A. (2015). Comparison of usable nitrogen and soil water content with dry wheat grain yield. Water and Soil Journal, 5, 1556-1573. https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v0i0.36954.
8. Flint, J. L., & Barrett, M. (1989). Effects of glyphosate combinations with 2,4-D or dicamba on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Science, 37(1), 12-18.
9. Gerami. A. (1998). Study on relationship of grain yield with quantitative traits in 500 wheat lines using factor anlaysis. Jouranl of Agricultural Sciences of Iran, 29, 263-377. (in Persian).
10. Johnson, B., & Nice, G. (2005). Weed Control in Wheat. Purdu University, West Lafayette.
11. Klingman, G. L., & Ashton, F. M. (1991). Weed Sciencs, Principles and Practices. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
12. Krupnova, O.V. (2010). Relation between grain weight and falling number in soft spring wheat. Russian Agricultural Sciences, 36(5), 321-323.
13. Lee, R. D. (1996). Intensive weed management in Georgia. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Cooperative Extension Service.
14. Loux, M., Stachler, J. M., Johnson, W. G., Nice, G. R., Nice, W., & Bauman, T. T. (2007). Weed control guide for Ohio and Indiana, Ohio State University Extension Media.
15. Marmaei, A. (2006). Investigating the response of various growth stages of wheat to some conventional broad leaf herbichdes. MSc.Thesis, Azad University, Science and Research Branch. (in Persian with English abstract)
16. Martin, J. R. (1998). Timing of herbicide application relative to wheat growth stage. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture News Letter, 2(2), 112-117.
17. Martin, D. A., Miller, S. D., & Alley, H. P. (1990). Spring wheat response to herbicides applied at three growth stages. Agronomy Journal, 82, 95-97.
18. Martin, M. H., Miller, S. D., & Alley, H. P. (1989). Winter wheat response to herbicide applied three growth stages. Weed Technology, 3, 90-94.
19. Mohajery, F., Allahverdi, I., & Zand, E. (2007). Investigating application of 2,4-D in various growth stages of wheat. MSc. Thesis. Tehran University, Abureihan campus, Iran. (in Persian with English abstract).
20. Miller, S. D., & Travis, D. (1992). Growth stages of wheat: Identification and understing improve crop management. Better Crops, 76(3), 1-12.
21. Montazeri, M., & Farzaneh, Gh. (1982). Technical Recommendations for Herbicide Application in Wheat and Barley Fields. Publications of Golestan Research and Natural Center, Golestan, Iran, 2 p. (in Persian with English abstract)
22. Montazeri, M., Zand, E., & Baghestani, M. A. (2005). Weeds and Their Control in Wheat Fields of Iran. Publications of Iran's Plant Protection Research Institute. Tehran, Iran, 97 p. (in Persian with English abstract).
23. Montazeri, M., Baghestani, M. A., & Zand, A. (2015). Weeds and Their Control in Wheat Fields of Iran. Publications of Iran's Medicinal Plant Research Institute. Tehran, Iran, 85 p. (in Persian with English abstract).
24. Nice, G., Johnson, B., & Bauman, T. (2003). Herbicide application timing for corn, soybean, wheat. Available. btny.Purdue.edu/weedscience/, p. 20-30
25. Parker, B., & Ball, D. (2007). Winter Wheat-Irrigated, East of Cascades. Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook. Oregon State University Agricultural, Corvallis, United States.
26. Poorsiahbidi, M. M. (1998). Study on genetic diversity of durum wheat lines in Esfehan zone and providing amphiploid whea MSc. Thesis, Isfehan Technology University, Isfehan, Iran. 131 p. (in Persian with English abstract).
27. Reynolds, M., Molero, G., Quilligan, E., Listman, M., & Braun, H. (2014). Proceedings of the 4th International Workshopof theWheat Yield Consortium CENEB, CIMMYT, Cd. Obregón, Sonora, Mexico (24-25th March).
28. Robinson, M. A., Letarte, J., Cowbrough, M. J., Sikkema, P.H., & Tardif, F. (2015). Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) response to herbicides as affected by application timing and temperature. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 95, 325333. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps-2014-109
29. Roman, E. S., Vargas, L., & Rodrigues, O. (2006). Manejo e controle de plantas daninhas em trigo. (Embrapa Trigo. Documentos Online, 63). Passo Fundo: Embrapa Trigo. Available from: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/852518/1/pdo63.pdf. Acessed on: 6 June 2020.
30. Scursoni, J. A., Gigon, R. Martin, A. N., Vigna, M., Leguizamon, E. S., Istilart, C., & Lopez, R. (2014). Changes in weed communities of spring wheat crops of Buenos Aires province of Argentina. Weed Science, 62, 51-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43700633
31. Schillinger, W. F. (2005). Tillage method and sowing rate relations for dryland spring wheat, barley, and oat. Crop Science, 45, 2636-2643. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.04-0016
32. Shoorbilal, S. K., & Hashemi, L. (2017). The effects of different application times of broadleaf herbicides on winter wheat. Research on Crop Ecophysiology, 12(2), 108-114
33. Skiba, E., & Wolf, W. M. (2017). Commercial phenoxyacetic herbicides control heavy metal uptake by wheat in a divergent way than pure activesubstances alone. Environmental Sciences Europe, Nantes, 29(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-017-0124-y
34. Soligo, V., Galon, L., Tiago Forte, C., Brunetto, L., Loureiro da Silva, A., Gallina, & Francisco Perin, G. (2020). Does doses and time of 2,4-D application interfere in the physiology and wheat grains yield components? Arquivos do Instituto Biologico, 89, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000342020
35. Shimi, P., Baghestani, M. A., Haqid, A., Rahimian, H., & Alizadeh, H. (2011). Effect of time of auxin herbicides application on yield and yield components of wheat. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 7, 1-12. (in Persian with English abstract)
36. Tawaha, A. M., Turk, M. A. & Maghaireh, G. A. (2002). Response of barley to herbicide versus mechanical weed control under semi-arid conditions.Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 188, 106-112. https://doi.org/1046/j.1439-037X.2002.00546.x
37. Wehtje, G., & Gilliam, C. H. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of glyphosate, 2,4-D, and triclopyr, alone and in select mixtures for poison ivy control. Weed Technology, 26(2), 469-473. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-11-00183.1
38. Whitesides, R. E. (1983). Identification of growth stages of winter wheat and response to broad leaf herbicides. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Science, 36, 123-124.
39. Zand, E., Mousavi, S., & Heidari, A. (2008). Herbicides and Their Application. Publications of Jahade Daneshgahi Mashhad, 567 pp. (in Persian).
40. Zheng, H. G., & Hall, J. C. (2001). Understanding auxinic herbicide resistance in wild mustard: Physiological, biochemical, and molecular genetic approaches. Weed Science, 49(2), 276-281. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0276:UAHRIW]2.0.CO;2