Paper · 1999 · Weed Technology

Selective Control of Jointed Goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) with Imazamox in Herbicide-Resistant Wheat

Daniel A. Ball; Frank L. Young; Alex G. Ogg

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
47
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Jointed goatgrass ( Aegilops cylindrica ) is a serious problem for winter wheat producers throughout the western U.S. Interference from this weed can severely reduce grain yield and contaminate harvested grain, resulting in dockage losses. There are currently no selective herbicides registered for controlling jointed goatgrass in wheat. Imazamox, an imidazolinone herbicide, was applied to an imidazolinone herbicide-resistant (IMI) wheat mutant of the winter wheat cultivar ‘Fidel.’ Jointed goatgrass control from spring postemergence application of imazamox ranged from 61 to 97% when applied at 36 g/ha. Negligible crop injury from imazamox treatment was observed at 36 g/ha at several locations under dryland environments in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Wheat yield was increased 19 to 41% by imazamox treatment in three of four experiments. Percent dockage resulting from jointed goatgrass spikelet contamination of harvested wheat grain was eliminated by imazamox treatment. Introduction of the IMI trait into commercial wheat cultivars could provide an effective method for selective control of jointed goatgrass in winter wheat.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazamox controlled jointed goatgrass by 61 to 97% at 36 g/ha.

Treatment
spring postemergence application of imazamoxe0
Interactor
Jointed goatgrasse0weed
Outcome
Jointed goatgrass controle0
Direction
controle0
Value
61 to 97%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Jointed goatgrass control from spring postemergence application of imazamox ranged from 61 to 97% when applied at 36 g/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–607 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 98–103 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazamox at 36 g/ha produced negligible wheat injury across several dryland locations.

Taxon
crope0
Treatment
imazamox treatmente0
Outcome
crop injurye0
Direction
Negligiblee0
Value
36 g/hae0
Setting
U.S. Pacific Northweste0

Verbatim

e0

“Negligible crop injury from imazamox treatment was observed at 36 g/ha at several locations under dryland environments in the U.S. Pacific Northwest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–757 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazamox raised wheat yield by 19 to 41% in three of four experiments.

Treatment
imazamox treatmente0
Outcome
Wheat yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
19 to 41%e0
Qualifier
three of four experimentse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wheat yield was increased 19 to 41% by imazamox treatment in three of four experiments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 759–845 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazamox eliminated dockage caused by jointed goatgrass spikelet contamination.

Treatment
imazamox treatmente0
Interactor
jointed goatgrasse0weed
Outcome
Percent dockage resulting from jointed goatgrass spikelet contaminatione0
Direction
eliminatede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Percent dockage resulting from jointed goatgrass spikelet contamination of harvested wheat grain was eliminated by imazamox treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–980 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Introducing the IMI trait into commercial wheat cultivars could enable selective jointed goatgrass control.

Interactor
jointed goatgrasse0weed
Outcome
selective control of jointed goatgrasse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Introduction of the IMI trait into commercial wheat cultivars could provide an effective method for selective control of jointed goatgrass in winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 982–1136 · show in text ↑

imazamox · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

7 papers: 4 positive, 3 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

imazamox · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

imazamox · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

herbicide · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 34 positive, 5 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.