Abstract
Field experiments were conducted at five locations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming to determine the effects of imazamox rate and application timing on winter annual grass control and crop response in imidazolinone-tolerant winter wheat. Imazamox at 35, 44, or 53 g ai/ha applied early-fall postemergence (EFP), late-fall postemergence, early-spring postemergence (ESP), or late-spring postemergence (LSP) controlled jointed goatgrass at least 95% in all experiments. Feral rye control with imazamox was 95 to 99%, regardless of rate or application timing at Hays, KS, in 2001. Feral rye control at Sidney, NE, and Torrington, WY, was highest (78 to 85%) with imazamox at 44 or 53 g/ha. At Sidney and Torrington, feral rye control was greatest when imazamox was applied EFP. Imazamox stunted wheat <10% in two experiments at Torrington, but EFP or LSP herbicide treatments in the Sidney experiment and ESP or LSP treatments in two Hays experiments caused moderate (12 to 34%) wheat injury. Wheat injury increased as imazamox rate increased. Wheat receiving imazamox LSP yielded less grain than wheat treated at other application timings in each Hays experiment and at Sidney in 2001. No yield differences occurred in one Torrington experiment. However, yields generally decreased as imazamox application timing was delayed in the other Torrington experiment. Generally, imazamox applied in the fall provided the greatest weed control, caused the least wheat injury, and maximized wheat yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Imazamox controlled jointed goatgrass at least 95% across experiments.
- Taxon
- Winter Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- Imazamox at 35, 44, or 53 g ai/hae0
- Interactor
- jointed goatgrasse0weed
- Outcome
- jointed goatgrasse0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- at least 95%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Imazamox at 35, 44, or 53 g ai/ha applied early-fall postemergence (EFP), late-fall postemergence, early-spring postemergence (ESP), or late-spring postemergence (LSP) controlled jointed goatgrass at least 95% in all experiments.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Feral rye control was 95 to 99% at Hays regardless of rate or timing.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- imazamoxe0
- Interactor
- Feral ryee0weed
- Outcome
- Feral rye controle0
- Direction
- controle0
- Value
- 95 to 99%e0
- Setting
- Hays, KSe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feral rye control with imazamox was 95 to 99%, regardless of rate or application timing at Hays, KS, in 2001.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Feral rye control at Sidney and Torrington was highest at 44 or 53 g/ha.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- imazamox at 44 or 53 g/hae0
- Interactor
- Feral ryee0weed
- Outcome
- Feral rye controle0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 78 to 85%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feral rye control at Sidney, NE, and Torrington, WY, was highest (78 to 85%) with imazamox at 44 or 53 g/ha.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Early fall application gave greatest feral rye control at Sidney and Torrington.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- imazamox was applied EFPe0
- Interactor
- feral ryee0weed
- Outcome
- feral rye controle0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At Sidney and Torrington, feral rye control was greatest when imazamox was applied EFP.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Imazamox stunted wheat less than 10% in two Torrington experiments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Imazamoxe0
- Outcome
- stunted wheate0
- Direction
- stuntede0
- Value
- <10%e0
- Setting
- Torringtone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Imazamox stunted wheat <10% in two experiments at Torrington”
Claim · model-written summary
Some application timings caused 12 to 34% wheat injury.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- herbicide treatmentse0
- Outcome
- wheat injurye0
- Direction
- causede0
- Value
- 12 to 34%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EFP or LSP herbicide treatments in the Sidney experiment and ESP or LSP treatments in two Hays experiments caused moderate (12 to 34%) wheat injury.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat injury increased with imazamox rate.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- imazamox ratee0
- Outcome
- Wheat injurye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat injury increased as imazamox rate increased.”
Claim · model-written summary
Late spring application reduced wheat grain yield compared with other timings in Hays and Sidney.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- imazamox LSPe0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- other application timingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat receiving imazamox LSP yielded less grain than wheat treated at other application timings in each Hays experiment and at Sidney in 2001.”
Claim · model-written summary
One Torrington experiment found no yield differences.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- yield differencese0
- Direction
- Noe0
- Setting
- Torringtone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No yield differences occurred in one Torrington experiment.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield generally decreased with later applications in the other Torrington experiment.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- imazamox application timinge0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yields generally decreased as imazamox application timing was delayed in the other Torrington experiment.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
imazamox · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →imazamox · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
imazamox · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
herbicide · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →herbicide · crop injury · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →herbicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 466 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
559 papers more in this group
See all 563 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.