Critical Period for Weed Control in Grafted and Nongrafted Fresh Market Tomato

Field experiments were conducted to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in nongrafted ‘Amelia’ and Amelia grafted onto ‘Maxifort’ tomato rootstock grown in plasticulture. The establishment treatments (EST) consisted of two seedlings each of common purslane, large crabgrass, and yellow nutsedge transplanted at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12 wk after tomato transplanting (WAT) and remained until tomato harvest to simulate weeds emerging at different times. The removal treatments (REM) consisted of the same weeds transplanted on the day of tomato transplanting and removed at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12 WAT to simulate weeds controlled at different times. The beginning and end of the CPWC, based on a 5% yield loss of marketable tomato, was determined by fitting log-logistic and Gompertz models to the relative yield data representing REM and EST, respectively. In both grafted and nongrafted tomato, plant aboveground dry biomass increased as establishment of weeds was delayed and tomato plant biomass decreased when removal of weeds was delayed. For a given time of weed removal and establishment, grafted tomato plants produced higher biomass than nongrafted. The delay in establishment and removal of weeds resulted in weed biomass decrease and increase of the same magnitude, respectively, regardless of transplant type. The predicted CPWC was from 2.2 to 4.5 WAT in grafted tomato and from 3.3 to 5.8 WAT in nongrafted tomato. The length (2.3 or 2.5 wk) of the CPWC in fresh market tomato was not affected by grafting; however, the CPWC management began and ended 1 wk earlier in grafted tomato than in nongrafted tomato.

Download Full-text

The Critical Period for Weed Control (CPWC) in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca ◽

10.15835/nbha43210031 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 355-360 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Dogan ISIK ◽

Adem AKCA ◽

Emine KAYA ALTOP ◽

Nihat TURSUN ◽

Husrev MENNAN

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Critical Period ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Yield Loss ◽

Cropping Systems ◽

Control Period ◽

Relative Yield ◽

Yield Data ◽

Weed Interference

Accurate assessment of crop-weed control period is an essential part for planning an effective weed management for cropping systems. Field experiments were conducted during the seasonal growing periods of potato in 2012 and 2013 in Kayseri, Turkey to assess critical period for weed control (CPWC) in potato. A four parameter log-logistic model was used to assist in monitoring and analysing two sets of related, relative crop yield. Data was obtained during the periods of increased weed interference and as a comparison, during weed-free periods. In both years, the relative yield of potato decreased with a longer period of weed-interference whereas increased with increasing length of weed free period. In 2012, the CPWC ranged from 112 to 1014 GDD (Growing Degree Days) which corresponded to 8 to 66 days after crop emergence (DAE) and between 135-958 GDD (10 to 63 DAE) in the following year based on a 5% acceptable yield loss. Weed-free conditions needed to be established as early as the first week after crop emergence and maintained as late as ten weeks after crop emergence to avoid more than 5% yield loss in the potato. The results suggest that CPWC could well assist potato producers to significantly reduce the expense of their weed management programs as well as improving its efficacy.

Download Full-text

Critical Period for Weed Control in Grafted and Nongrafted Watermelon Grown in Plasticulture

Weed Science ◽

10.1017/wsc.2018.76 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 67 (2) ◽

pp. 221-228 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Matthew B. Bertucci ◽

Katherine M. Jennings ◽

David W. Monks ◽

Jonathan R. Schultheis ◽

Frank J. Louws ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Critical Period ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Citrullus Lanatus ◽

Weed Species ◽

Yellow Nutsedge ◽

Study Results ◽

Seedless Watermelon ◽

Common Purslane ◽

Weed Removal

AbstractField experiments determined the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in grafted and nongrafted watermelon [Citrullus lanatus(Thumb.) Matsum. & Nakai] grown in plasticulture. Transplant types included ‘Exclamation’ seedless watermelon as the nongrafted control as well as Exclamation grafted onto two interspecific hybrid squash (ISH) rootstocks, ‘Carnivor’ and ‘Kazako’. To simulate weed emergence throughout the season, establishment treatments (EST) consisted of two seedlings each of common purslane (Portulaca oleraceaL.), large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis(L.) Scop.], and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentusL.) transplanted in a 15 by 15 cm square centered on watermelon plants at 0, 2, 3, 4, and 6 wk after watermelon transplanting (WATr) and remained until the final watermelon harvest at 11 WATr. To simulate weed control at different times in the season, removal treatments (REM) consisted of two seedlings of the same weed species transplanted in a 15 by 15 cm square centered on watermelon plants on the same day of watermelon transplanting and allowed to remain until 2, 3, 4, 6, and 11 WATr, at which time they were removed. Season-long weedy and weed-free controls were included for both EST and REM studies in both years. For all transplant types, aboveground biomass of weeds decreased as weed establishment was delayed and increased as weed removal was delayed. The predicted CPWC for nongrafted Exclamation and Carnivor required only a single weed removal between 2.3 and 2.5 WATr and 1.9 and 2.6 WATr, respectively, while predicted CPWC for Kazako rootstock occurred from 0.3 to 2.6 WATr. Our study results suggest that weed control for this mixed population of weeds would be similar between nongrafted Exclamation and Exclamation grafted onto Carnivor. But the observed CPWC of Exclamation grafted onto Kazako suggests that CPWC may vary with specific rootstock–scion combinations.

Download Full-text

The Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn in Turkey

Weed Technology ◽

10.1614/wt-05-102.1 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 867-872 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Dogan Isik ◽

Husrev Mennan ◽

Bekir Bukun ◽

Ahmet Oz ◽

Mathieu Ngouajio

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Critical Period ◽

Yield Loss ◽

Relative Yield ◽

Field Studies ◽

The Black Sea ◽

Yield Data ◽

Black Sea Region ◽

Weed Interference ◽

Loss Level

Field studies were conducted in 2001 and 2002 in the Black Sea Region of northern Turkey to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in corn and the effects of weed interference on corn height. Treatments of increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period were imposed at weekly intervals from 0 to 12 wk after crop emergence (WAE). The CPWC was determined with the use of 2.5, 5, and 10% acceptable yield loss levels by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data. With 5% yield loss level, the CPWC was 5 wk, starting at 0.2 WAE and ending at 5.2 WAE, which corresponded to the one- to five-leaf stage of corn. The CPWC increased to 8.9 wk, starting at 0 WAE and ending at 8.9 WAE, at the 2.5% yield loss level. At 10% yield loss level, the CPWC decreased to 1.7 wk, starting at 2.1 WAE and ending at 3.8 WAE.

Download Full-text

Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn

Weed Science ◽

10.1614/ws-06-005r.1 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 54 (5) ◽

pp. 928-933 ◽

Cited By ~ 45

Author(s):

Martin M. Williams

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Critical Period ◽

Sweet Corn ◽

Relative Yield ◽

Planting Date ◽

Integrated Weed Management ◽

Yield Losses ◽

Yield Data ◽

Weed Interference

The critical period for weed control (CPWC) identifies the phase of the crop growth cycle when weed interference results in unacceptable yield losses; however, the effect of planting date on CPWC is not well understood. Field studies were conducted in 2004 and 2005 at Urbana, IL, to determine CPWC in sweet corn for early May (EARLY) and late-June (LATE) planting dates. A quantitative series of treatments of both increasing duration of interference and length of weed-free period were imposed within each planting-date main plot. The beginning and end of the CPWC, based on 5% loss of marketable ear mass, was determined by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to the relative yield data representing increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free periods, respectively. Weed interference stressed the crop more quickly and to a greater extent in EARLY, relative to LATE. At a 5% yield-loss level, duration of weed interference for 160 and 662 growing-degree days (GDD) from crop emergence marked the beginning of the CPWC for EARLY and LATE, respectively. When maintained weed-free for 320 and 134 GDD, weeds emerging later caused yield losses of less than 5% for EARLY and LATE, respectively. Weed densities exceeded 85 plants m−2for the duration of the experiments and predominant species included barnyardgrass, common lambsquarters, common purslane, redroot pigweed, and velvetleaf. Weed canopy height and total aboveground weed biomass were 300% and 500% higher, respectively, for EARLY compared with LATE. Interactions between planting date and CPWC indicate the need to consider planting date in the optimization of integrated weed management systems for sweet corn. In this study, weed management in mid-June–planted sweet corn could have been less intensive than early May–planted corn, reducing herbicide use and risk of herbicide carryover to sensitive rotation crops.

Download Full-text

Critical Period for Weed Control in Leek (Allium porrum L.)

HortScience ◽

10.21273/hortsci.42.1.106 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 42 (1) ◽

pp. 106-109 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Nihat Tursun ◽

Bekir Bükün ◽

Sinan Can Karacan ◽

Mathieu Ngouajio ◽

Hüsrev Mennan

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Critical Period ◽

Relative Yield ◽

Field Studies ◽

Allium Porrum ◽

Yield Data ◽

Fresh Biomass ◽

Weed Interference ◽

Weed Infestation ◽

Loss Level

Field studies were conducted in Mersin, Turkey, in 2002 and 2003 to determine the critical period for weed control in leek and to investigate the effects of weed interference on weed biomass. The critical period for weed control in leek based on a 5% acceptable yield loss level was calculated by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data. Total fresh biomass of weeds increased as the duration of weed infestation increased. The beginning of the critical period for weed control was 7 days after transplanting in 2002 and 13 days after transplanting in 2003. The end of the critical period for weed control was 85 days after transplanting in 2002 and 60 days after transplanting in 2003. Results of this study suggest that leek should be kept weed free between 7 days after transplanting and 85 days after transplanting to avoid yield losses in excess of 5%.

Download Full-text

Critical Period for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Pickling Cucumber

Weed Technology ◽

10.1017/wet.2018.58 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 32 (5) ◽

pp. 586-591

Author(s):

Samuel J. McGowen ◽

Katherine M. Jennings ◽

Sushila Chaudhari ◽

David W. Monks ◽

Jonathan R. Schultheis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

North Carolina ◽

Critical Period ◽

Relative Yield ◽

Field Studies ◽

Palmer Amaranth ◽

Amaranthus Palmeri ◽

Marketable Yield ◽

Yield Data ◽

Pickling Cucumber ◽

Cucumber Yield

AbstractField studies were conducted in North Carolina to determine the critical period for Palmer amaranth control (CPPAC) in pickling cucumber. In removal treatments (REM), emerged Palmer amaranth were allowed to compete with cucumber for 14, 21, 28, or 35 d after sowing (DAS) in 2014 and 14, 21, 35, or 42 DAS in 2015, and cucumber was kept weed-free for the remainder of the season. In the establishment treatments (EST), cucumber was maintained free of Palmer amaranth by hand removal until 14, 21, 28, or 35 DAS in 2014 and until 14, 21, 35, or 42 DAS in 2015; after this, Palmer amaranth was allowed to establish and compete with the cucumber for the remainder of the season. The beginning and end of the CPPAC, based on 5% loss of marketable yield, was determined by fitting log-logistic and Gompertz equations to the relative yield data representing REM and EST, respectively. Season-long competition by Palmer amaranth reduced pickling cucumber yield by 45% to 98% and 88% to 98% during 2014 and 2015, respectively. When cucumber was planted on April 25, 2015, the CPPAC ranged from 570 to 1,002 heat units (HU), which corresponded to 32 to 49 DAS. However, when cucumber planting was delayed 2 to 4 wk (May 7 and May 21, 2014 and May 4, 2015), the CPPAC lasted from 100 to 918 HU (7 to 44 DAS). This research suggested that planting pickling cucumber as early as possible during the season may help to reduce competition by Palmer amaranth and delay the beginning of the CPPAC.

Download Full-text

Weed Management in Southeastern Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222

Weed Technology ◽

10.1017/s0890037x00045851 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 145-152 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

John S. Richburg ◽

John W. Wilcut ◽

Daniel L. Colvin ◽

Gerald R. Wiley

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Arachis Hypogaea ◽

Weed Management ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Common Ragweed ◽

Yellow Nutsedge ◽

Application Rates ◽

Ac 263,222

Field experiments conducted at four locations in Georgia and two locations in Florida during 1992 and 1993 evaluated AC 263,222 application rates and timings, systems, and mixtures for weed control, peanut injury, and yield. All rates of AC 263,222 applied early POST (EPOST) or POST controlledIpomoeamorningglories and smallflower morningglory at least 90%, and purple and yellow nutsedge at least 81%. Florida beggarweed and sicklepod control generally was highest when metolachlor was applied PPI followed by AC 263,222 applied EPOST at 71 g/ha, AC 263,222 at 27 or 36 g/ha plus bentazon plus paraquat applied POST, or with bentazon plus paraquat applied EPOST followed by AC 263,222 applied POST at 36 or 53 g/ha. Acifluorfen and acifluorfen plus bentazon reduced Florida beggarweed and sicklepod control at several locations when applied in mixture with AC 263,222. Common ragweed and hairy indigo control were 85 to 95% with bentazon plus paraquat applied EPOST followed by AC 263,222 applied POST at 36 or 53 g/ha. Highest peanut yields were obtained with treatments providing high levels of weed control.

Download Full-text

Weed Control with and Strawberry Tolerance to Herbicides Applied through Drip Irrigation

Weed Technology ◽

10.1017/wet.2017.63 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 31 (6) ◽

pp. 870-876 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Jialin Yu ◽

Nathan S. Boyd

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Drip Irrigation ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Gulf Coast ◽

Control Program ◽

Weed Suppression ◽

Management Options ◽

Yellow Nutsedge ◽

Permit Application ◽

Research And Education

Broadleaves, grasses, and nutsedge species are persistent problems with limited management options for strawberry growers in Florida. Field experiments were conducted in 2015-2016 (year 1) and 2016-2017 (year 2) at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center in Balm, FL, to evaluate weed control and strawberry tolerance to herbicides applied through the drip irrigation. 2940 g ai ha-1EPTC, 105 g ai ha-1flumioxazin, 570 g ai ha-1fomesafen, 52 g ai ha-1halosulfuron, 3585 g ai ha-1napropamide, oxyfluorfen 560 g ai ha-1, and 1070 g ai ha-1S-metolachlor were applied through a single drip tape at 7 or 14 d prior to transplanting. Halosulfuron was the most injurious herbicide, causing 18 and 46% injury at 35 d after transplanting (DATP) in year 1 when the herbicide was applied 7 and 14 d prior to transplanting, respectively. However, strawberry plants recovered from the initial injury and there was no reduction in total berry yield. None of the other herbicides evaluated elicited significant crop injury nor reduced berry yield. Averaged over application timings, EPTC, fomesafen, and napropamide suppressed yellow nutsedge emergence to 49, 64, and 41% of the nontreated control, respectively. Flumioxazin, fomesafen, and halosulfuron suppressed black medic emergence to 55, 52, and 55% of the nontreated control, respectively. None of the herbicides evaluated adequately suppressed Carolina geranium. Overall, results suggest that the evaluated herbicides with the exception of halosulfuron are safe for use on strawberry and would give growers an alternative management option. Drip-applied herbicides permit application closer to the transplant date and would be helpful as part of a weed control program for weed suppression.

Download Full-text

Leaching of Indaziflam Compared with Residual Herbicides Commonly Used in Florida Citrus

Weed Technology ◽

10.1614/wt-d-11-00161.1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 26 (3) ◽

pp. 602-607 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Amit J. Jhala ◽

Megh Singh

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Broad Spectrum ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Plant Biomass ◽

Soil Column ◽

Annual Ryegrass ◽

Soil Columns ◽

Leaching Behavior ◽

Natural Rainfall ◽

Florida Citrus

Soil-applied herbicides are commonly used for broad-spectrum residual weed control in Florida citrus. Groundwater contamination from some soil-applied herbicides has been reported in citrus growing areas in Florida. Indaziflam is a new soil-applied herbicide recently registered for broad-spectrum weed control in Florida citrus. There is no information available on leaching behavior of indaziflam in sandy soil. Experiments were conducted to compare leaching of indaziflam with five commercially used residual herbicides in a Florida Candler soil under simulated rainfall of 5 or 15 cm ha−1. Herbicide movement down soil columns was measured by visually evaluating injury and harvesting aboveground biomass of the bioassay species annual ryegrass. Ryegrass was not injured and plant biomass was not affected beyond 30 cm when indaziflam at a recommended rate of 73 g ai ha−1was leached through the soil column. Leaching of indaziflam increased with increasing amounts of rainfall. For example, indaziflam leached up to 12.2 ± 0.8 cm (values are expressed ± SD) and 27.2 ± 2.6 cm at 5 and 15 cm ha−1rainfall, respectively. The herbicide ranking from high to low mobility at 15 cm ha−1of rainfall was bromacil = norflurazon > indaziflam > simazine = pendimethalin > diuron. Overall results suggested that indaziflam leaching was limited in Florida Candler soil in this study; however, field experiments are required to confirm the leaching of indaziflam under natural rainfall situation.

Download Full-text

Olive Processing Waste as a Method of Weed Control for Okra, Faba Bean, and Onion

Weed Technology ◽

10.1614/wt-08-126.1 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 569-573 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Ozhan Boz ◽

Derya Ogüt ◽

Kamil Kır ◽

M. Nedim Doğan

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Faba Bean ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Processing Waste ◽

Negative Effects ◽

Control Efficacy ◽

Annual Bluegrass ◽

Growing Seasons ◽

Common Purslane ◽

Wild Chamomile

Field experiments were carried out during two growing seasons at Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Agriculture, in Aydın-Turkey to evaluate the weed control efficacy of olive processing waste (OPW) in okra, faba bean, and onion. OPW was incorporated into the soil prior to seeding at 10, 20, 30, and 40 tons (t)/ha. Non-treated plots and plots treated with trifluralin in okra and pendimethalin in faba bean and onion were used for comparison. OPW suppressed common purslane, redroot pigweed, and junglerice in okra; littleseed canarygrass, annual bluegrass, wild chamomile, and shepherd's-purse in faba bean and onion. OPW was in most cases equally as effective as soil herbicides; however, 10 t/ha provided sometimes lower efficacy than herbicides. OPW had no negative effects on okra and faba bean, while onion was negatively affected by doses over 30 t/ha. Overall, OPW can be applied at 10 to 20 t/ha doses for weed control with adequate crop safety.

Download Full-text