Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T09:45:55.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of herbicide efficacy and application timing for giant miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) biomass reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2020

Nicole Barksdale ,
John D. Byrd ,
Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro  and
David P. Russell Open the ORCID record for David P. Russell [Opens in a new window]
Nicole Barksdale*
Affiliation:
Biological Science Technician, Genetics and Sustainable Agriculture Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Mississippi State, MS, USA
John D. Byrd
Affiliation:
Extension and Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Maria Leticia M. Zaccaro
Affiliation:
Senior Graduate Assistant, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
David P. Russell
Affiliation:
Extension Specialist, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Belle Mina, AL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nicole Barksdale, Biological Science Technician, USDA-ARS Crop Science Research Laboratory, 810 Highway 12 E, Mississippi State, MS39762. Email: Nicole.Barksdale@USDA.GOV
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant miscanthus has the potential to move beyond cultivated fields and invade noncrop areas, but this can be overshadowed by aesthetic appeal and monetary value as a biofuel crop. Most research on giant miscanthus has focused on herbicide tolerance for establishment and production rather than terminating an existing stand. This study was conducted to evaluate herbicide options for control or terminating a stand of giant miscanthus. In 2013 and 2014, field experiments were conducted on established stands of the giant miscanthus cultivars ‘Nagara’ and ‘Freedom.’ Herbicides evaluated in both years included glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapic, imazapyr, clethodim, fluazifop, and glyphosate plus fluazifop. All treatments were applied in summer (June or July) and September. For both years, biomass reduction ranged from 85% to 100% when glyphosate was applied in June or July at 4.5 or 7.3 kg ae ha−1. No other treatment applied at this timing provided more than 50% giant miscanthus biomass reduction 1 yr after application. September applications of glyphosate were not consistent: treatments in 2013 reduced biomass by 40% or less, whereas in 2014, at all rates provided at least 78% biomass reduction. Glyphosate applied in June or July was the only treatment that provided effective and consistent control of giant miscanthus 1 yr after treatment.

Keywords

biofuel crop eradicationapplication timinginvasive speciesweed risk assessment protocolsalternative land useClethodimfluazifopglyphosatehexazinoneimazapicimazapyrgiant miscanthus, Miscanthus x giganteus J.M. Greef & Deuter ex. Hodkinson & Renvoize [sacchariflorus × sinensis]
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 371 - 376
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware

References

Amougou, N, Bertrand, I, Cadoux, S, Recous, S (2012) Miscanthus x giganteus leaf senescence, decomposition and C and N inputs to soil. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:698–70710.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01192.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, EK, Voigt, TB, Bollero, GA, Hager, AG (2011) Miscanthus x giganteus response to tillage and glyphosate. Weed Technol 25:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. (2008). Giant grass Miscanthus can meet U.S. biofuels goal using less land than corn or switchgrass. ScienceDaily. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080730155344.htm. Accessed: January 29, 2020Google Scholar
Banks, PA, Kirby, MA, Santelmann, PW (1977) Influence of postemergence and subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle and peanuts. Weed Sci 25:5–810.1017/S004317450003280XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Lindsey, AJ, Henry, GM, Henry, CF, Glaspie, CF, Phillips, K, McKenney, C (2011) Response of Miscanthus × giganteus and Miscanthus sinensis to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 25:398–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, J, Hutchens, M (1995) Progress in commercial development of Miscanthus in England. Pages 587–593 in Chartier, P, Beenackers, AACM, Grassi, G, eds. Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry: Proceedings of the 8th European Biomass Conference. Vol. 1. Oxford, UK: Elsevier ScienceGoogle Scholar
Khanna, M, Dhungana, B, Clifton-Brown, J (2008) Costs of producing switchgrass and Miscanthus for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenerg 32:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, SP, Dohleman, F, Jones, MB, Clifton-Brown, J, Jorgensen, U (2007) Miscanthus–panacea for energy security and the Midwest economy or another kudzu? Ill Steward 16:31–32Google Scholar
Mack, RN (2000) Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental stochasticity. Biol Invasions 2:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN (2008) Evaluating the credits and debits of a proposed biofuels species. Giant reed (Arundo Donax). Weed Sci 56:883–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitra, S, Bhowmik, PC (1999) Effects of growth stages on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) control in corn (Zea mays) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol 13:47–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, PB (1987) Vegetativ formering af elefantgraes, Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’ [Vegetative propagation of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’] (in Danish with English summary). Tidsskr Planteavl 91:361–368Google Scholar
Pyter, R, Voigt, T, Dohleman, F, Long, SP (2007) Growing giant Miscanthus in Illinois. http://miscanthus.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/growersguide.pdf. Accessed: January 29, 2020Google Scholar
Scurlock, JMO (1999) Miscanthus: a review of European experience with a novel energy. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division Publication 4845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LL, Askew, SD, Hagood, ES, Barney, JN (2015) Screening preemergence and postemergence herbicides for safety in bioenergy crops. Weed Technol 29:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar