Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:54:18.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David W. Monks  and
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Removal and plant-back studies were conducted in North Carolina in 1991 and 1992 to determine the critical period of large crabgrass competition in transplanted triploid (seedless) watermelon. For every week that large crabgrass remained in watermelon, medium (3.6 to 7.3 kg) melon yield decreased 3,996 kg and 716 fruit ha−1. For every week that large crabgrass emergence was delayed, yield increased by 814 kg and 142 fruit ha−1. Likewise, for every week that large crabgrass remained in watermelon, marketable (3.6 kg and over) yield decreased 5,582 kg and 911 fruit ha−1. For every week that large crabgrass emergence was delayed, yield was increased 881 kg and 151 fruit ha−1. Large crabgrass emerging after 6 wk had no effect on marketable fruit or number of watermelon. To achieve the greatest quality or quantity of medium or marketable fruit, a large crabgrass-free period between 0 and 6 wk after transplanting was necessary.

Keywords

Watermelon, Citrullus lanatus (thub.) Matsum and Nakailarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSACompetitioninterferencelosses from weedsmodelsseedless watermelontriploid watermelonweed emergenceweed removalyield reductionDIGSA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , October 1998 , pp. 530 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1998. Poast product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 47 p.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Bauman, P. A. 1992. Weeds causing losses in the United Stares. Pages 75-147 in Bridges, D. C., ed. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in Canada and the United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. H. 1978. Weed interference in pickling cucumbers (Cucumis sativus). Weed Sci. 26: 626–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Foy, C. L. 1983. Efficacy of three postemergence grass herbicides for soybeans. Weed Sci. 31: 557–561.Google Scholar
Mallet, J. Y. and Ashley, R. A. 1988. Determination of summer squash's tolerance to weed interference: a critical period study. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42: 204–208.Google Scholar
Marr, C. W. and Gast, K.L.B. 1991. Reactions by consumers in a farmers' market to prices for seedless watermelon and rating of eating quality. HortTechnology 1: 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerson, H. 1989. Weed competition in muskmelon and its effects on yield and quality. Crop Prot. 8: 439–443.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2: 389–403.Google Scholar
Terry, E. R. and Stall, W. M. 1992. Smooth amaranth interference in muskmelon. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 105: 319–321.Google Scholar