What Does the Future Hold?
Changing weather patterns are already impacting goosegrass’ life-cycle and may create bigger challenges in the future. Short-lived perennial goosegrass already exists in Florida, and reports of perennial goosegrass ecotypes have been made in the Carolinas as well. Goosegrass emergence also continues to shift earlier into the spring and later in the summer, and perhaps even into the early fall. This makes extending chemical control throughout the growing season even more important, as well as getting control in place quickly in spring.
Lastly, turfgrass research scientists are hard at work studying goosegrass and there is still much to learn, including knowing more about how it develops herbicide resistance, when seeds become viable, and how changing weather patterns will affect the periodicity and life-cycle of the plant. Technology will most certainly play a role in the future of goosegrass control. Whether it’s in the form of better lab tools for researchers to analyze plant genetics or new equipment that superintendents can use for targeted herbicide treatments, turf weed science is advancing at a rapid pace. “Smart sprayers” that use machine vision and artificial intelligence are in the late stages of development and are scheduled to be released for use in golf in the near future. These marvels of modern technology will have the ability to “see and spray” goosegrass and other weeds. Just load the tank, tell the computer what types of weeds or weed species you want to target, and drive. The growth habit of goosegrass and other weeds makes them rather easy for software to distinguish from desirable grasses in a stand of turf, making autonomous identification and control more feasible than with Poa annua, for example.
The future holds promise for better goosegrass management options and weed science in general. But for now, it’s important to use a range of effective strategies if you want to get a grip on goosegrass.
Authors’ Note: We would like to acknowledge Dr. Shawn Askew of Virginia Tech and Dr. Jim Brosnan of the University of Tennessee for their contributions to this article.
References
Boyd, A.P., McElroy, J.S., McCurdy, J.D., McCullough, P.E., Han, D.Y., & Guertal, E.A. (2021). Reducing topramezone injury to bermudagrass using chelated iron and other additives. Weed Technology, 35(2), 289-296.
Busey, P. (2024). Goosegrass seedling emergence and growth in bermudagrass canopy and divots. HortScience, 59(8), 1182-1185. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci17949-24
Chuah, T.S., Salmijah, S., Teng, Y.T., & Ismail, B.S. (2004). Changes in seed bank size and dormancy characteristics of the glyphosate‐resistant biotype of goosegrass (Eleusine indica [L.] Gaertn.). Weed Biology and Management, 4(2), 114-121.
Cox, M.C., Rana, S.S., Brewer, J.R., & Askew, S.D. (2017). Goosegrass and bermudagrass response to rates and tank mixtures of topramezone and triclopyr. Crop Science, 57(S1), S-310.
Nishimoto, R.K., & McCarty, L.B. (1997). Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Science, 45(3), 426-429.
Patel, J., Hall, N.D., Harris, J.R., & McElroy, J.S. (2023). Morphological and metabolic differences between turfgrass and row-crop biotypes of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Crop Science, 63, 1602-1612. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20933
Peppers, J.M., Elmore, M.T., & Askew, S. D. (2023). Evaluation of goosegrass response to combinations of topramezone and chlorothalonil. Weed Technology, 37(5), 554-559.